I didn't like that line, it seemed like backtracking, both unwillingness for the company to make what they presented as his origin as his definite origin and to be Moore going against how he was characterizing the Joker in the comic otherwise, that he did remember the events but wanted to and was trying to forget them (for example the line that money isn't a problem "these days", contrasting to when it very much was, and his suggestion that "If we can't face [memories], we deny reason itself! Although, why not? We aren't contractually tied down to rationality!"). He seemed to be believing and advocating that people live as if they didn't have painful memories, which is a lot weaker view if he himself just doesn't have reliable memories.
You're not following our discussion here. This isn't about your own tastes. I don't care if you liked the line or not. I'm not debating your personal tastes here, its your false assertion that the movie was telling the audience not to take the Joker seriously.
You're also totally misreading that line. The Joker acknowledges himself that something terrible happened to him, although he remembers it differently each time, the common thread is something tragic screwed up his life. Much like the Joker in TDK. His two tales had a common thread.
But the character has had a definite origin in the comics at times if not much of the times. Him previously being the Red Hood and disfigured by chemicals jumped into to escape Batman was established in 1950 and I believe the case for both Golden and Silver Age versions, post-Crisis TKJ was a possible origin though not committed to, then in 2004 a very similar origin was established as what had happened.
The character never had a definite origin. The only common thread is the Red Hood/fall into the chemicals. He was never defined as who he was under that hood. He could have been anyone with any kind of background. That is what Moore made a story from. He came up with a possible background to the Joker in TKJ, but asserted through Joker himself that it is only one possibility.
It does make him seem highly deceitful and disingenuous/insincere although yes I guess the commonality between them hints there's some sort of truth and so his claim that something tragic happened probably shouldn't be completely dismissed-although some viewers do do so, think he was bad & crazy from the beginning and/or with no reason to be so, especially with him planning to give a third version of his origin to Batman.
Newsflash; the Joker is highly deceitful and insincere. The thing about his origin stories is they may or may not be true. That's one of the best things about the Joker. You don't know if he's being sincere or not. We know he blatantly lies e.g. when he tricks Batman about Harvey and Rachel's locations, or when he lies to Dent about having any involvement in Rachel's death just because he was in jail at the time. Then we know he is sincere when he says Batman "completes him" when he goes to great lengths to protect Batman's identity, and refusing to kill him.
Point is whether you believe or dismiss his stories, that isn't the movies telling you to not take him or what he is trying to do seriously. If the movie was sending that message, it would be heavily criticized for asking the audience to dismiss its villain, not to mention the whole ending would have been very different.
It seems different, a much stronger and bolder declaration by the filmmakers, that he would fail completely with so many people; that he failed with one person Gordon, though Batman takes it to mean he's wrong in general, suggests he's wrong in general and Batman thinks it proves it but it feels much more like an open question.
It seems different to you. You need to stop projecting your own views onto the general consensus. Again I am not interested in what you thought about it. What we were debating was your illogical declarations about how the audiences view the character and the movie. Something you have failed to back up with any proof.
The whole point of the two scenarios in TDK and TKJ is Joker tried to prove something and he failed. Batman pointed that out to him. Simple as that. There's no bold declaration.
Well that felt like the film being inconsistent, that people were willing to not kill for their own survival (and the whole city saw that and would be proud and inspired by it) but despite that happening that Harvey Dent had gone bad would demoralize the city, make everyone think the Joker was right, a lot more than that masses had refused to kill each other would inspire them.
Again it felt like that for you. You're straying from your original point, too. If the movie was trying to tell you not to take the Joker or what he was doing seriously, there would be no need to take the blame for Dent's crimes and cover it up so "The Joker cannot win". But they did. So again your claim is factually false. This is not an opinionated issue. You are wrong.
You didn't think it was controversial for and challenging to audiences to learn that Luke could go to dark, that his inspirational father and evil enemy were the same person (the ultra-evil bad guy had himself once been a hero) and that his mentors had lied to him? Or that mobsters could be considered morally equivalent to police and that a war hero could for moral reasons become a murderer and mob leader?
No of course not, why would that be controversial? Good people can do bad things, especially under extreme circumstances, and some of the most corrupt people have come from military backgrounds. There is no challenge there. That is reality.
