The Dark Knight The “Dark Knight” Debate – Did Batman Need To Fall?

[escobar2248]

I've seen people bring this (the bold part) up before, and I totally disagree. I don't think that was ever the point of his self-sacrifice. Agree with the rest, though.

I believe that the point of his self sacrifice is for the good of Gotham. To keep the city's attitude and moral outlook positive. Throughout the movie, Harvey was professed as the "White Knight" of Gotham, the city's savior. Gotham's citizens had started to believe that. If the city learned that their "hero" had gone bad and murdered five people...then what kind of message does that send to the citizens that believed in Harvey and what he did?

We're going to have to wait til the third movie to see the repercussions from this.

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

Edit

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

I feel it was something batman wanted to do as soon as people he cared about started dying, he needed to justify his actions, I mean in a way he definitly did cause all of this, the whole escalation theme was the strongest in the film.

 

[xVxeVoxVx]

I took Batman taking the blame as a way to not only keep Harvey's name clean as the white Knight, but in all of the chaos, to keep most of Gothams attention on him as a vigilante, thus taking away any focus that might have been dedicated to Harvey Two face and the killings.

By the end of the movie, most loose ends were tied, and with Harvey now "dead", rather than giving city officials and cops time to start investigating into the backstory of Harvey Dent, Its simpler for Batman to take the blame simply because he "Can take it" and that moves the focus quickly onto him and away from the tarnishing of Harvey. I find it more believable that all of gotham would shift their focus towards a man who they thought was helping the city, but is now believed to be a murderer still at large, rather than someone who was the city's hope and is now dead.
I dont know, It makes sense to me. Sorry if I didnt describe my thoughts in a clean and understandable fashion.

 

[bunk]

Question: Did Batman really need to take the fall for everyone Dent killed? Was it simply a matter of needing to have it happen for thematic purposes? Couldn’t Gordon blame one of the Jokers dead goons or a mobster or some other person besides Gorham’s hero?

Wondering what you all think about this, I am conflicted. I do *love* the idea of Batman having everyone on his tail and being a real outlaw, but I don’t think the logic is there for how it happened in this version of that story.

I really get what your saying BatmanFanatic. I posed the same questions in the Two Face thread, I think. Some of the responses in this thread have helped me reconcile the ending a little more.

At the end of the day, I think what really works for me; is how the Joker really did get the last laugh.

He told Batman he'd "make him break his one rule". And he totally does. As far as the public is concerned, Batman did kill. He broke his one rule. Joker wins.

 

[MegaGeek]

"Couldn’t Gordon blame one of the Jokers dead goons or a mobster or some other person besides Gorham’s hero?"

No... Not without tarnishing Gordon reputation and integrity as a good cop. Manufacturing or planting evidence against a suspect living or dead is something good cops do not do... With Batman taking the "blame" basically it was giving Gordon permission. Basically Batman "confessed" to the crimes and thus that lets Gordon integrity off the hook.

Well not exactly, the problem is Gordon knows that Batman is lying. Integrity has everything to do with what is honest and truthfull more so then doing whats right for the greater good." So to let Batman lie and take the wrap even though it may be the right thing to do would still go against Gordons integrity.

 

[Frodo]

Great discussion guys.

I think this is what Nolan wants us to do. He wants us to debate and to be critical thinkers about the themes of the films and what Batman did. IMO he wanted to take the film beyond just a normal Batfilm painting by the numbers. He really poses to us particularly in a post 9/11 world questions of how far you are willing to go to stop a Terrorist i.e Joker? Is it wise for people to place blind faith in someone as their savior? What makes a true Hero? Is it about putting on a costume ? What compromises do you have to make in order to achieve the greater good?

For me , Batman taking the hit is not a flaw in the writing, but is another of Batman's choices Nolan wants the audience to debate much like the whole phone monitoring system. This is the first Batman film that has really challenged the audience to reflect on it.

 

[kyuubijavi1]

Eh maybe cause if Batman didnt take the blaim all of gotham would of been thrown to hell. They idolized Dent and looked up to him, Batman was already hated by the end of the film saying he killed a couple people wasnt going to change the fact that they wanted him caught and locked up. But if Gotham found out Dent was the one that killed those people it would of crushed them seeing that even the best of men can fall, it would leave them empty. As to a lie is better than the truth in alot of times it is for example, Jesus he is a symbol to a billion people a sign of hope, love, faith, everything, now if some one where to one day come by and tell them that they have prof that he killed and raped people every one would lose faith and when that happens, they lose faith in everything around them. The same can be said with Dent if they would of left the crimes open some one would of snooped around and found out the truth sooner or later by Batman taking the blaim and admitting he killed them doesnt change a thing other than people now knowing Batman is capable of killing. So he took the blaim for the sake of Gotham's soul and the only ones that know the truth are Gordan, his son & Batman.

 

[the_monk]

I don't think the point is whether "he" needed to take the fall on it. It's what Gotham needed to do. Batman put the entire city's problems on his shoulders. That's what makes him a hero.

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

I really get what your saying BatmanFanatic. I posed the same questions in the Two Face thread, I think. Some of the responses in this thread have helped me reconcile the ending a little more.

At the end of the day, I think what really works for me; is how the Joker really did get the last laugh.

He told Batman he'd "make him break his one rule". And he totally does. As far as the public is concerned, Batman did kill. He broke his one rule. Joker wins.

I didnt really think of it like that, I guess your right, The Joker does win in his own way.

 

[Spidey-Sean]

There actually is a big discussion going on the /film comments about this question. I read through a lot of them, and a poster named "Eric" wrote this, which I thought was a pretty good analysis of the question:

Quoted from the slash-film comment/board things:

Eric Says:

July 21st, 2008 at 1:07 am

I can understand why many are bothered by what seems like a thematic rather than realistic choice for Batman to take the blame for the murders, but I think that’s only because they didn’t really touch on another significant reason for doing so…. other than to keep Dent as Gotham’s incorruptible white knight.

He is still in the process of developing the Batman persona. As Batman he is anonymous, so his human ‘weaknesses’ can’t be targeted as easily. He is also a symbol. The one thing that the Villains do have on him is he is self-righteous, and so they focus on that. In both movies the villains focus on Batman’s ‘one rule’ that he won’t break. It’s the one weakness in the Batman persona.

After the destruction of Harvey Dent and Bruce tells Alfred he has seen what he would have to become to defeat men like that. Men like that. He is not just talking about the Joker, but all the villains Batman must face in the future and the one he faced in the past.

In the end taking on the blame for the murders means future villains will no longer assume Batman is above killing them or anyone else. He will be even more feared by them, and will not be perceived as having that one weakness they can exploit or try to corrupt.

And thought that tarnishes the morality of the Batman symbol, he decides that Gotham doesn’t need Batman to symbolize morality any longer. They have a far better symbol for that… the white knight. This also may help solve the issue of the copycat Batmen running around with guns. He said early on in the film that when he wanted to inspire the people of Gotham that wasn’t what he meant. It was the unintended consequence of being a ‘moral’ symbol of justice.

He could better serve Gotham as a Dark Knight. Not one to be idolized and mimicked, it’d be better for them to idolize and mimic the symbol of Dent he helps manufacture. On the other hand he also can’t really start killing criminals or villains like the Joker or else he would be corrupted.

The end gives him his path out out of this issue… and it’s tragic. He is even more isolated.

The more I think about it, the more the movie seems to have pieces that back it up. The Joker tells Batman that as soon as it’s convenient they will turn on him for the freak he is. This assumes that Batman needs their acceptance. And maybe he did, but he evolved to no longer need that.

I guess the only weakness I see is that they didn’t have Batman and Gordan have that lengthy conversation before he takes flight, but now that would have been really contrived and unrealistic.

I think this pretty much sums up a reasonable answer. It's more about how Batman is perceived and how that would influence the public that made him decide to take the fall.

 

[weezerspider]

They seriously could have blamed them on The Joker. Joker didn't know how many Police me he killed. He mouthed "six" in a suprised but confident way earlier in the movie. I really doubt Joker would have thought anything of it. He probably would have assumed he did kill those people. Honestly, even he claimed he didn't, he's insane, who's gonna believe him?

 

[Black Zodak]

Even though Batman is the one being hunted, I would not be surprised if some people believe that it was the vigilantes dressing up as Batman who really did it, and not the man himself.

 

[Anita18]

Either way the citizens are going to be incredibly disillusioned ... you don't think they'll be upset that Batman turned out to be a murdering crazy in their eyes?

Nobody knows he's NOT a murdering crazy. Scarecrow knows he doesn't use guns, but do you think it's common knowledge among the general public, especially when there are Batman copycats out there who have no qualms about carrying firearms with live ammunition? Even Maroni was like, "The fall wouldn't kill me," meaning that he expected Batman to threaten him with death, not just severe injury.

Batman doesn't give public press conferences about what he will or will not do. He's an urban legend, and the public probably believes he is perfectly capable of killing if given the chance. He hasn't yet, but it doesn't mean that he will.

That's not exactly a shining example to set. And the films closing line of "Sometimes the truth isn't good enough..." I mean, what kind of a message / reason is that? That's what they want people to walk away with - basically, LIE because it's convenient? Lie if there is a benefit?

They don't say if it's wrong or right in general - it's only wrong or right depending on who's involved. It directly reflects our society right now - the media has a huge hand in giving the public what they need to hear, or what the government wants them to hear.

Quoted from the slash-film comment/board things:

Eric Says:

July 21st, 2008 at 1:07 am

I can understand why many are bothered by what seems like a thematic rather than realistic choice for Batman to take the blame for the murders, but I think that’s only because they didn’t really touch on another significant reason for doing so…. other than to keep Dent as Gotham’s incorruptible white knight.

He is still in the process of developing the Batman persona. As Batman he is anonymous, so his human ‘weaknesses’ can’t be targeted as easily. He is also a symbol. The one thing that the Villains do have on him is he is self-righteous, and so they focus on that. In both movies the villains focus on Batman’s ‘one rule’ that he won’t break. It’s the one weakness in the Batman persona.

After the destruction of Harvey Dent and Bruce tells Alfred he has seen what he would have to become to defeat men like that. Men like that. He is not just talking about the Joker, but all the villains Batman must face in the future and the one he faced in the past.

In the end taking on the blame for the murders means future villains will no longer assume Batman is above killing them or anyone else. He will be even more feared by them, and will not be perceived as having that one weakness they can exploit or try to corrupt.

And thought that tarnishes the morality of the Batman symbol, he decides that Gotham doesn’t need Batman to symbolize morality any longer. They have a far better symbol for that… the white knight. This also may help solve the issue of the copycat Batmen running around with guns. He said early on in the film that when he wanted to inspire the people of Gotham that wasn’t what he meant. It was the unintended consequence of being a ‘moral’ symbol of justice.

He could better serve Gotham as a Dark Knight. Not one to be idolized and mimicked, it’d be better for them to idolize and mimic the symbol of Dent he helps manufacture. On the other hand he also can’t really start killing criminals or villains like the Joker or else he would be corrupted.

The end gives him his path out out of this issue… and it’s tragic. He is even more isolated.

The more I think about it, the more the movie seems to have pieces that back it up. The Joker tells Batman that as soon as it’s convenient they will turn on him for the freak he is. This assumes that Batman needs their acceptance. And maybe he did, but he evolved to no longer need that.

I guess the only weakness I see is that they didn’t have Batman and Gordan have that lengthy conversation before he takes flight, but now that would have been really contrived and unrealistic.

I think this pretty much sums up a reasonable answer. It's more about how Batman is perceived and how that would influence the public that made him decide to take the fall.

That is an awesome write up. Thanks for quoting it.

 

[Anita18]

Yes, those are great thematic reasons, but not logical ones. Theme and logic must work together in a successful screenplay.

If you have problems with the screenplay, you can consider this blog post by Hollywood screenwriter Todd Alcott:

For me, I'm still a little stunned, and intimidated, by The Dark Knight's screenplay. Plot is one of the hardest things to manufacture, and as I say, this movie has more plot than any five given movies. It's a relentless, non-stop plot machine, and it handles all of it while still delivering the stunts, action and spectacle expected from the genre. Sometimes it does both at the same time. I'm comfortably accustomed to sitting down in a movie and knowing my way around a narrative, and the idea that a so-called "superhero movie" would have one so complex, compact and intense, challenging and troubling that I give up keeping track, even on a second viewing, is, frankly, kind of blisteringly fantastic.

My wife is something of a plot-nazi. Often, we go see some well-turned-out spectacle or other and I sit through the whole thing with a big goofy grin on my face, wondering at all the color and texture, and afterward I'll turn to my wife and say "Well, what did you think?" and regardless of whatever pleasures the movie has to offer, she'll zero in on one fault in the plot that ruins the entire narrative and the movie's pleasures will immediately evaporate. For The Dark Knight, she had exactly one question on the way back to the parking garage. That question answered (it regarded how the Joker was financing his operation), she declared that the plot was air-tight. So you can take that as a strong recommendation: Todd Alcott's wife finds the plot of The Dark Knight air-tight.

http://toddalcott.livejournal.com/205666.html

It's good to see that I'm not going crazy, thinking that the plot in TDK was fantastic.

 

[Sweetchuck]

I think that in the universe that Nolan has set-up the only way for Batman to truly protect the city is for him to be the Head villian guy. Yes Batman as the head villian. Not that he actuallygoes around committing crime or even allowing it. But that he has proved to all of Gotham and the freaks that he is the ultimate killer. So the public fears him. And the freaks fear him.
Basically he should go around kinda like a Darth Vader type character enforcing the Legend of the Bat. Cause he'll never win by figiting them.

And on a side not. Wont Most copsand anypoliticians kinda look at Gordon (the new commish) as being "in-League" with the Killer Batman. Afterall he even had Batman coming to crime scenes as a special investigator. So if everyone hates Bats wont they also think Gordon is scum???

 

[Anita18]

As for my thoughts, yes, they could have logically pinned the murders on Joker or whoever, but thematically and character-wise, I can't see it happening differently than the way it does in TDK.

Harvey says earlier (with Batman repeating it), "You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain." Dent lived to be a villain, but when he died, Gordon and Batman made him the hero.

Batman and Gordon choose this, most obviously because knowing the truth would break Gotham's spirit, they feel. This is also reflected in Alfred's burning of Rachel's note, although the note is less of an issue because both Rachel and Harvey are dead.

As for the Batman character as shown in this film, (I know people have their own interpretation of what Batman should be like ) I also feel he has to make the choice he does. Throughout the entire story, every decision that Batman makes hurts or kills other people. He feels guilty about it, which is why he considers turning himself in. He's starting to doubt his existence because of what the Joker is doing.

At the end of the film, he chooses to hurt himself.. The Joker no longer has that power over him. He takes it, and accepts the outcome entirely. ("You'll hunt me. You'll condemn me, set the dogs on me. Because that's what needs to happen.") He finds reasons for his existence.

And don't tell me that the ending didn't make you , cause I always start to tear up at the line I just quoted.

 

[Frodo]

I actually liked the ending alot. I know there have been criticisms about the last 20 minutes or so but as I said , I think Nolan wanted to do more then a cookie cutter ending of a Batman film . At the end what do we have? Rachel is Dead. Harvey is "Dead". The Citzens of Gotham hate Batman. Batman is hunted. Bruce's spirit is broken . And now the door is opened for criminals to follow in the Joker's footsteps. It is very much the Empire Strikes Back of the series though it doesn't have the transitional feeling of that film.

It's been a couple of Days since I've seen it and I can't stop thinking about . Usually good dramas have that effect on me . It's pretty deep IMO.

 

[mongoose-mania]

yes, because he needed to learn how to pick himself up.

Best possible answer right there.

 

[Mikelus]

Nobody knows he's NOT a murdering crazy. Scarecrow knows he doesn't use guns, but do you think it's common knowledge among the general public, especially when there are Batman copycats out there who have no qualms about carrying firearms with live ammunition? Even Maroni was like, "The fall wouldn't kill me," meaning that he expected Batman to threaten him with death, not just severe injury.

Batman doesn't give public press conferences about what he will or will not do. He's an urban legend, and the public probably believes he is perfectly capable of killing if given the chance. He hasn't yet, but it doesn't mean that he will.


They don't say if it's wrong or right in general - it's only wrong or right depending on who's involved. It directly reflects our society right now - the media has a huge hand in giving the public what they need to hear, or what the government wants them to hear.

Well said Anita, some people fail to grasp these little, but important details (unless they're trolling for attention). Is ironic when someone whines about "logic" when its arguments are flawed to start with.

 

[The Guard]

I think it was important to see him fail. I would have preferred to have seen him fail and see Gotham turned against him, not just to see him force Gotham to turn against him out of some misguided sense of guilt. I don't think he HAD to fall quite the way he did, but it's nice to see them actually exploring the concept of a vigilante in Gotham.

 

[I Am The Knight]

I agree it could have been explained in a more believable way, but I also think the answer we need is in CaptainClown's post:



I'm not sure the cops knew there was a hostage situation, but they certainly knew that something was going down there AND that Gordon knew about it.

Think about it, they're setting a perimeter around the place and in a sec they'll come in and see Dent's body lying there. What can Gordon say? "Oh, I don't actually KNOW what happened, I just called you on a hunch and didn't really see anything myself, so... Yeah, unsolved murder, case closed"? Besides, it's very possible someone would see Bats leaving. I know normally he could just vanish, but here the police is right around the corner and he's badly injured. Not to mention any evidence that might suggest his presence there. The situation would at best be fishy, maybe tarnishing Dent's name (as mysterious death situations tend to do).

So, with the police knowing that Dent was dead there, that Gordon knew that something was going on, not to mention his family being there probably as hostages (he wouldn't just take them there for a family pic-nic, would he?) and possibly that Batman was there too, there are only two options available: blame Harvey or blame Bats.

Choose the second option, throw in the rest of Two-face's murders and you have a clean-cut case that makes Dent a hero and requires little investigation.

I, too, am usually VERY annoyed by plotholes, to the point that I just can't enjoy some otherwise well made films. But I think this case is relatively easily explained, even if it requires some thought.

P.S.: I know there' the question of why would Batman take Gordon's family as hostages, but I think an explanation could easily be thought of, or Gordon could simply say he has no idea why he'd do that.

Batman's been helping the police, being a "good guy" ... Then all of a sudden he snaps, goes on a killing spree, kidnaps Gordon's family, and kills Dent

 

[Asteroid-Man]

The problem is, there is no logical way out of the situation without Batman / Gordon ADMITTING that they lied to the public in order to cover for Dent.

That's not exactly a shining example to set. And the films closing line of "Sometimes the truth isn't good enough..." I mean, what kind of a message / reason is that? That's what they want people to walk away with - basically, LIE because it's convenient? Lie if there is a benefit?

They lied to keep the hope of the people of Gotham alive. And Batman and Gordon aren't the only ones who know about Two-Face's murders, there's Ramirez, The Joker, Maroni (if he survived) and Two-Face himself (if he survived)

 

[Infinity9999x]

I believe that the point of his self sacrifice is for the good of Gotham. To keep the city's attitude and moral outlook positive. Throughout the movie, Harvey was professed as the "White Knight" of Gotham, the city's savior. Gotham's citizens had started to believe that. If the city learned that their "hero" had gone bad and murdered five people...then what kind of message does that send to the citizens that believed in Harvey and what he did?

We're going to have to wait til the third movie to see the repercussions from this.

This is exactly why Batman had to take the fall, at least that's how I interpreted it. Gotham needed hope.

And Gordon couldn't gloss over it and try to say a random Mobster did it or something like that. There were at least 20 cops right outside the construction site. They knew there was a "situation" the only people in that place besides Gordon and his family were Batman and Dent. You had to blame it on one of the latter two. Gordon couldn't say "oh it was one of Maroni's guys" because how in the heck did the guy get away? The place was surrounded by cops, he would have been seen.

There wasn't any other way to go about it without blaming Dent.

 

[Anita18]

Batman's been helping the police, being a "good guy" ... Then all of a sudden he snaps, goes on a killing spree, kidnaps Gordon's family, and kills Dent

It's not public knowledge that he was working with the police. The SWAT team saw how there was immense friction between Gordon and Batman right before that encounter - Batman wants 5 minutes with Joker, Gordon gives him 2.

And as Gordon says at the ruined building, all they know is that "there's a situation, they don't know who or what."