Crazy fan theory about TDK's Joker

[Dagenspear]

We do? Excellent! I must have missed it so please tell me his real name, how he truly got those scars, how he knew his way around the security at the mob bank and also how he hired the bank team at the beginning of the movie.

Oh, sorry, I thought you meant he was developed the exact same way that Jack Napier was. So basically we don't know 1/16th as much about the Ledgker as we do about Napier. Got it.

Knowing more about their origin isn't knowing their motivation really. Learning about Jack's background doesn't emphasize his current motivations. It tells use what he can do. But that doesn't develop his motive more Ledger's does. But a developed background doesn't assist the current characterization in any way but to emphasize his past to explain the character's current characterization.

God bless you! God bless everyone in your life!

[The Dark Knight]

Knowing more about their origin isn't knowing their motivation really. Learning about Jack's background doesn't emphasize his current motivations. It tells use what he can do. But that doesn't develop his motive more Ledger's does. But a developed background doesn't assist the current characterization in any way but to emphasize his past to explain the character's current characterization.

I disagree. Jack was vain before his transformation, and afterwards he wanted to scar all beauty - to make it like himself. Be it artwork or Grissom's mistress. His past well and truly determined his future characterization.

[Dagenspear]

Knowing more about their origin isn't knowing their motivation really. Learning about Jack's background doesn't emphasize his current motivations. It tells use what he can do. But that doesn't develop his motive more Ledger's does. But a developed background doesn't assist the current characterization in any way but to emphasize his past to explain the character's current characterization.

I disagree. Jack was vain before his transformation, and afterwards he wanted to scar all beauty - to make it like himself. Be it artwork or Grissom's mistress. His past well and truly determined his future characterization.

I was talking about his background, not what we learn about him in the present day of the movie. That's characterization in the film. That seems a little lame to me.

God bless you! God bless everyone in your life!

[Wayne49]

I thought the entire theme of Dark Knight was chaos against structure and how personal motive is often the only defining mechanism that contrasts the two. The Joker essentially exposes the weaknesses of everyone on the playing field, (from rival mobsters to the police/Batman) and uses their reasoning systems against themselves.

From the opening sequence the Joker understood better than the criminals themselves, there is no code of loyalty amongst thieves. So throughout the bank robbery sequence you see thugs turn on one another based on what each believes is another ulterior motive. What none of them realize is the Joker is simply having them dispose of one another so he can take the sum total of money as a presumed position of strength. He uses this philosophy to disrupt and break apart the higher crime bosses in the network.

He then infiltrates the police force by identifying the weakest links who are in need or simply on the take to establish an insider perspective which allows him to stay one step ahead. Batman is a fairly easy target because of his reputation for protecting the innocent while not killing anyone in the process. The Joker see's his weakness and exploits it to try and expose his true identity. I never felt this was a very strong story point since the very purpose of Batman is to fight the battles Bruce Wayne can't fight in his public position, thereby eliminating traditional accountability. I couldn't see him surrendering his identity since he should instinctively understand the motive is only to reveal Batman, not to stop the murders which would become ten fold without his presence. I thought Nolan played Wayne more than a little too naïve there. But I digress.

When the Joker kills the top mobster by setting him ablaze on top of a mountain of stolen money, this eliminates another motive for police to follow which is financial gain. The Joker then begins playing his hand with the insiders to disrupt and weaken the confidence of the police force.  Once again, the Joker is revisiting a familiar tool by using the collective's since of structure and trust to allow him to weaken them and eliminate them from the picture. He creates chaos by exposing traders within their group. Where he ultimately fails is in presuming he can betray and trick the human spirit. He believes he can get the people trapped on both boats to destroy themselves by suggesting this is necessary to preserve life for the other. Ultimately he is defeated by the misunderstanding that people can and do sacrifice for the common good of all, and not just for themselves. It's the one structure he is unable to overcome which takes him off guard and allows Batman to intervene and defeat him.

The Joker was never a wanna-be hero in this. He set out to prove that the sense of structure people create for themselves is nothing more than a false front to cover the real pursuit which is personal gratification. He believed anyone could be bought or compromised if you exposed them to a choice of what they really wanted. He was wrong. There ARE people out there that make sacrifices that service only the common good of others, which ironically defines the existence of his arch rival - Batman.

[The Laughing Fish]

The Joker was never a wanna-be hero in this. He set out to prove that the sense of structure people create for themselves is nothing more than a false front to cover the real pursuit which is personal gratification. He believed anyone could be bought or compromised if you exposed them to a choice of what they really wanted. He was wrong. There ARE people out there that make sacrifices that service only the common good of others, which ironically defines the existence of his arch rival - Batman.

If by sacrifice - you mean Batman taking the fall to prevent people from getting devastated over what Dent did, then no, I don't agree.

It's one thing for a film to give us an impossibly idealistic scenario that shows all people are good, but I hate the mixed message the ending of this film makes. Don't show one moment of ugly human behavior i.e. people caving into Joker's demands by trying to kill Reese, but then expect me to believe a completely unrealistic scenario of citizens and convicts refusing to kill each other when their lives are in danger. And don't expect me to embrace Batman telling a lie that undermines his belief that people can persevere by covering up Dent's crimes. If people are willing to believe in good, and they just proved what Batman has been saying throughout that boat scene, then they can cope with the news that Dent became a psychopath. Otherwise, I guess Batman deep down agrees with Joker's bleak view on human nature after all?

[Wayne49]

The Joker was never a wanna-be hero in this. He set out to prove that the sense of structure people create for themselves is nothing more than a false front to cover the real pursuit which is personal gratification. He believed anyone could be bought or compromised if you exposed them to a choice of what they really wanted. He was wrong. There ARE people out there that make sacrifices that service only the common good of others, which ironically defines the existence of his arch rival - Batman.

If by sacrifice - you mean Batman taking the fall to prevent people from getting devastated over what Dent did, then no, I don't agree.

It's one thing for a film to give us an impossibly idealistic scenario that shows all people are good, but I hate the mixed message the ending of this film makes. Don't show one moment of ugly human behavior i.e. people caving into Joker's demands by trying to kill Reese, but then expect me to believe a completely unrealistic scenario of citizens and convicts refusing to kill each other when their lives are in danger. And don't expect me to embrace Batman telling a lie that undermines his belief that people can persevere by covering up Dent's crimes. If people are willing to believe in good, and they just proved what Batman has been saying throughout that boat scene, then they can cope with the news that Dent became a psychopath. Otherwise, I guess Batman deep down agrees with Joker's bleak view on human nature after all?

I completely understand where you're coming from and indeed Nolan gets himself in trouble with the boat sequence because, to me, self preservation is a human being's most natural instinct. Having one boat loaded with criminals only drives that point home further since their chosen lot in life was to be selfish. You'll get no disagreement with me there.

But I think what Nolan was trying to do with Batman's cover-up of Dent was circumvent the intended purpose the Joker had for the public. Remember, the Joker got to Dent at his weakest moment. The Joker exposed that by taking his loss and turning it into revenge. That's a fairly common human emotion and I agree with how that played out. Dent's collapse was very circumstantial to the Joker's influence. But you know that was not HIM. The Joker was trying to use Dent's moment of angst and grief to tell the city that he was NEVER well intended, impacting the city's trust in it's leaders and ability to rebuild itself. The Joker wanted chaos by telling everyone they were no good. Batman was saying there is good, but you have to believe. So I think on principle he was not being a hypocrite in taking that direction.

But you are absolutely right. Nolan often trips over himself in trying to over analyze the concept of the human spirit. People ARE fallible, but not everyone is corruptible. We see that every day in the news. People WILL die for a cause or standard they believe in. But Nolan did push the limits of that idea on a number of story points in this film. But no where in there did I see the Joker as a hero to the cause. He was exposing people's weaknesses and causing them to destroy one another. He wasn't looking to achieve harmony, just chaos. That's what you get when you lose hope and I think Nolan was trying to offer up Batman as that symbol to inspire people.

[The Laughing Fish]

But I think what Nolan was trying to do with Batman's cover-up of Dent was circumvent the intended purpose the Joker had for the public. Remember, the Joker got to Dent at his weakest moment. The Joker exposed that by taking his loss and turning it into revenge. That's a fairly common human emotion and I agree with how that played out. Dent's collapse was very circumstantial to the Joker's influence. But you know that was not HIM. The Joker was trying to use Dent's moment of angst and grief to tell the city that he was NEVER well intended, impacting the city's trust in it's leaders and ability to rebuild itself. The Joker wanted chaos by telling everyone they were no good. Batman was saying there is good, but you have to believe. So I think on principle he was not being a hypocrite in taking that direction.

To tell you the truth, I thought Harvey Dent's turn to insanity was utterly ridiculous too. Yes, I understand Dent was distressed over Rachel's death...but he was staring right at the guy who played a part in murdering her. As a matter of fact, Joker threatening to kill Rachel was the whole reason why Harvey desperately took matters in his own hands when he interrogated that schizo henchman; not to mention Joker already tried to kill Rachel at the penthouse. But in the end, Harvey lets his fiance's killer into manipulating him into taking his anger out on others, who either worked as accomplices or failed to stop him? I don't care how crazy Dent might have become. If he resented Gordon for not being proactive enough to stop the corrupt cops who were involved in Rachel's death, then surely he must have a greater resentment for the man who intended and played a direct part in killing her. It would've made a hell of a lot more sense if Dent had gone on his own path for vengeance without Joker's intervention, and the message that good men could be corrupted still would've carried over, albeit logically.

Compare that to BTAS, Two-Face only had his mind on getting revenge against people who were directly responsible for ruining his life. He didn't blame Batman, Gordon or even the corrupt justice system. No, he wanted to get back at Rupert Thorne and his gang, because they were the ones who threatened to ruin his reputation, and in the end, it lead to his disfigurement, losing his career and his fiance. 

Nonetheless, I might've tolerated the whole Two-Face arc if Dent didn't die and Batman told everybody the truth about what happened, and that way, Batman's belief in people was completely justified and fulfills the role as the symbol that inspires others. Some people will argue that it would be questionable for the public to look up to Batman as a role model because he is a vigilante, but you know? Dent isn't innocent either. Not only did he work in a corrupt legal environment like Gordon and Rachel did, he was the one who requested Batman to go and get Lau back from Hong Kong in the first place, and continued to work with Batman soon after.

But no where in there did I see the Joker as a hero to the cause. He was exposing people's weaknesses and causing them to destroy one another. He wasn't looking to achieve harmony, just chaos.

Agreed. I still have no idea what that blogger who wrote that analysis was talking about.

[Edd Grayson]

In regards to this theory: some people think that characters that are against the "system", whatever that is, are automatically heroes. But that does not make it a fact, especially if your hero is a murdering sociopath. 

[Dagenspear]

If by sacrifice - you mean Batman taking the fall to prevent people from getting devastated over what Dent did, then no, I don't agree.

It's one thing for a film to give us an impossibly idealistic scenario that shows all people are good, but I hate the mixed message the ending of this film makes. Don't show one moment of ugly human behavior i.e. people caving into Joker's demands by trying to kill Reese, but then expect me to believe a completely unrealistic scenario of citizens and convicts refusing to kill each other when their lives are in danger. And don't expect me to embrace Batman telling a lie that undermines his belief that people can persevere by covering up Dent's crimes. If people are willing to believe in good, and they just proved what Batman has been saying throughout that boat scene, then they can cope with the news that Dent became a psychopath. Otherwise, I guess Batman deep down agrees with Joker's bleak view on human nature after all?

He doesn't agree with it. But he fears the possibility. It's not something he's wants to risk. It doesn't undermine his belief, because that belief in the movie was about Harvey. The people don't cave to the joker's commands. Some do. Others, the majority, don't. Things aren't clean cut. It isn't just that people are bad or good. There are both. The movie shows that. Moroni feels bad for the actions of the joker. The russian doesn't. There several people who do nothing on the boats, several people who vote to blow the other one up, but no one does. Bruce doesn't break, but Harvey does. I'm sorry, but it keeps seeming like you didn't pay attention to the movie.

God bless you! God bless everyone in your life!

[Wayne49]

This has been a great discussion but I think it also illustrates how the concept gets a little top heavy when screen writers and directors try to incorporate too many metaphors between Batman and his villains. I think there are some interesting analogies wrapped in both characters. But the Nolan films, for me, get so bogged down in the process of wanting to say something about society, they sometimes leave the track of entertainment because of this burden to validate the material.

Ultimately, no matter how a writer or director wants to expound upon the Batman character and his world, there eventually has to be an acceptance that we are functioning in a fictional world even if Batman is depicted as nothing more than a man. His circumstances are incredible and his ability to overcome insurmountable odds are often depicted in the world of the fantastic. Even more so, the world around him is ALWAYS dumbed down to accommodate his existence.

There's a pageantry to the superhero experience that dictates that we watch seemingly ordinary or awkward people become incredible heroes under extraordinary circumstances (with style points). No matter what you add to that foundation, ultimately people want that emotional exchange. It's a celebration of the human spirit through spectacle. We're not suppose to believe this is real. So while I enjoy discussing the social themes within any given material, when it comes to movies about Batman, I personally look for an imaginative production that celebrates the imagery of that world.

Batman walking around like he's overdosed on Prozac is, to me, leaving the train of preferred story telling. I get his angst and thus the reason for his motivation...hence the costume. I don't feel we need a two hour justification for why he wears a costume. There's no amount of rationality that will make it real for this world, so a familiar anecdote to advance the narrative is sufficient for me. I understand why I'm here. I don't need my hero confused for two hours because he doesn't.

If it sounds like I'm paring down the story requirements to make it utterly mindless, that's not my intent. But I do believe there needs to be a degree of awareness on the part of the director (and the audience), of why society has celebrated it's heroes in the panel graphic art form for so long. It's a visual celebration of the human spirit. If Bruce Wayne came out in a towel pinned to a poorly stitched mask, we wouldn't care WHAT got him there. We would consider him an idiot and quickly leave. But if his presentation is sleek and stylish, and he's placed in an environment to compliment that appearance, then we're invested. I never forget that baseline requirement when I see these movies. Forget practicality. Without style points for presentation, most people would just assume Bruce had not survived his parents mugging. We love our heroes, but I believe some directors miss the point by placing too much weight on a multi-layered story that forgets we're here to SEE our hero, not just wallow in his sorrow.