The Dark Knight The people Dent killed in the end... why didn't Gordon blame it on someone else?

[Diemtay]

Couldn't he have just told Gothem that The Joker killed those people? I mean, it's not like anyone would question that, and if the Joker did deny it, no one would take him seriously. Hell, Gordon could have just blamed it on any random henchman of the Joker, why put the blame on Batman?

 

[IndyJokerJones]

Did you see all the officers during the barge scene? And the ones that showed up at the warehouse making a perimeter? Too many people knew that Joker was there and had been planning the Ferry catch 22 after leaving the hospital, the bus and doctors proving that he went straight there from the hospital. Batman was already seen as a dangerous vigilante and taking out some dirty cops and mob people would go with his public image. It was convenient and he willingly took the burden on himself, putting it on anyone else would be wrong and basically condemning someone innocent of the charged crimes.

Batman took the blame because there was no other choice and he can endure it. The hero the city deserves and all that jazz.

 

[Diemtay]

Did you see all the officers during the barge scene? And the ones that showed up at the warehouse making a perimeter? Too many people knew that Joker was there and had been planning the Ferry catch 22 after leaving the hospital, the bus and doctors proving that he went straight there from the hospital. Batman was already seen as a dangerous vigilante and taking out some dirty cops and mob people would go with his public image. It was convenient and he willingly took the burden on himself, putting it on anyone else would be wrong and basically condemning someone innocent of the charged crimes.

Batman took the blame because there was no other choice and he can endure it. The hero the city deserves and all that jazz.

Alright, that makes sense. But what about one of Joker's henchman? Gordon could have just told Gothem that a bunch of Jokers guys did it.

 

[IndyJokerJones]

Alright, that makes sense. But what about one of Joker's henchman? Gordon could have just told Gothem that a bunch of Jokers guys did it.

Again that's kinda falsely charging men with killing cops. Cop killers usually stand no chance so with Gotham's police force there'd be more than a few men who would take revenge on anyone working for The Joker. Gordon's above that, he's by the rules...except when that rule is arrest the Batman.

I mean you have a point, he could have just said, "well an unidentified henchman killed these people," but these were people specifically centered around Rachel's death and Harvey's disfigurement and with Ramirez presumably still alive it would probably come to light. Easiest just to say Batman killed the people behind the "death" of the District Attorney and be done with it, no loose threads. Except maybe Ramirez if she talks. And is, y'know, not dead.

 

[Godzilla2014]

Intentionally framing someone else, even the Joker, without their expressed consent, would be a compromise of his moral code and integrity. Batman willingly accepted the penalties for the Two-Face killings. Had they framed Joker, then they would have betrayed everything that they fought to keep.

If they were concerned with the most effective means to resolve the situation, then yes, they might have framed Joker. If they believed the ends justify the means, any means, then Batman would have ran over the Joker, let him fall, or even just snapped his neck or shot him. But both Batman and Gordon were also concerned with holding onto their integrity through it. Integrity cannot be taken, only given. They paid a high price for it, between them Rachel Dawe's life, Harvey Dent's friendship (and eventually his life), Commissioner Loeb's life among others, and Batman his reputation and Gordon's partnership.

Just compare Bruce Wayne and Harvey Dent at the end of the film as Batman and Two Face. Both suffered the same tragedy (Rachel's death) and respond in very different ways. Harvey Dent gave away his integrity, while Bruce Wayne refused to allow the Joker to take his away. In the end, Batman has his integrity but sacrifices his reputation while Harvey Dent sacrificed his integrity but keeps his reputation.

Framing another person completely changes the meaning of the ending entirely, one where Joker won.

 

[El Payaso]

Intentionally framing someone else, even the Joker, without their expressed consent, would be a compromise of his moral code and integrity. Batman willingly accepted the penalties for the Two-Face killings. Had they framed Joker, then they would have betrayed everything that they fought to keep.

If they were concerned with the most effective means to resolve the situation, then yes, they might have framed Joker. If they believed the ends justify the means, any means, then Batman would have ran over the Joker, let him fall, or even just snapped his neck or shot him. But both Batman and Gordon were also concerned with holding onto their integrity through it. Integrity cannot be taken, only given. They paid a high price for it, between them Rachel Dawe's life, Harvey Dent's friendship (and eventually his life), Commissioner Loeb's life among others, and Batman his reputation and Gordon's partnership.

Just compare Bruce Wayne and Harvey Dent at the end of the film as Batman and Two Face. Both suffered the same tragedy (Rachel's death) and respond in very different ways. Harvey Dent gave away his integrity, while Bruce Wayne refused to allow the Joker to take his away. In the end, Batman has his integrity but sacrifices his reputation while Harvey Dent sacrificed his integrity but keeps his reputation.

Framing another person completely changes the meaning of the ending entirely, one where Joker won.

Agreed.

For that matter, why didn't they just kill him.

 

[Motown Marvel]

not being honest about harvey completely undermines the entire movie. the whole time, batman is championing the resolve of gotham city and its citizens, and how when put under pressure they would persevere on the side of good. this was even proven with their impossibly idealized reaction to the boat/bomb situation where even hardened criminals became selflessly heroic. yet when, oh no, their white knight did a bad thing, we cant trust the people to understand why it happened. instead, we need to lie to them for no good reason because we suddenly dont trust them.

 

[Godzilla2014]

not being honest about harvey completely undermines the entire movie. the whole time, batman is championing the resolve of gotham city and its citizens, and how when put under pressure they would persevere on the side of good. this was even proven with their impossibly idealized reaction to the boat/bomb situation where even hardened criminals became selflessly heroic. yet when, oh no, their white knight did a bad thing, we cant trust the people to understand why it happened. instead, we need to lie to them for no good reason because we suddenly dont trust them.

Because Harvey Dent was a symbol of hope for a better Gotham, the kind that Batman cannot be. His corruption would destroy that. It's actually foreshadowed throughout the movie if you're paying close enough attention. Covering up his involvement in the murders means that he dies a hero, not the villain. What he did is no ordinary "bad thing" for a political scandal. Had Harvey, say, cheated on Rachel, or something like that, there would be no need to cover it up. But Harvey Dent was corrupted by the Joker, abandoning everything he stood for and believed in for revenge and he killed several people, including police officers. Thanks to the cover-up, he dies as an unbreakable symbol of hope that might inspire someone else to take up the fight. Without it, then people would know that the Joker broke him. No one would want to follow in his footsteps.

 

[Motown Marvel]

Because Harvey Dent was a symbol of hope for a better Gotham, the kind that Batman cannot be. His corruption would destroy that. It's actually foreshadowed throughout the movie if you're paying close enough attention. Covering up his involvement in the murders means that he dies a hero, not the villain. What he did is no ordinary "bad thing" for a political scandal. Had Harvey, say, cheated on Rachel, or something like that, there would be no need to cover it up. But Harvey Dent was corrupted by the Joker, abandoning everything he stood for and believed in for revenge and he killed several people, including police officers. Thanks to the cover-up, he dies as an unbreakable symbol of hope that might inspire someone else to take up the fight. Without it, then people would know that the Joker broke him. No one would want to follow in his footsteps.

i understand the ham-fisted rhetoric from the movie about how gotham is apparently so damn fragile that the survival of the whole city is entirely dependant on harvey dent's purity. its stupid.

joker says when pushed into a corner, gotham will break. batman says gotham is stronger than that and will persevere. if you believe the latter, you give them the truth trusting they will persevere. otherwise, you lie to them, give them false and hollow hope, and prove the joker right.

 

[Godzilla2014]

i understand the ham-fisted rhetoric from the movie about how gotham is apparently so damn fragile that the survival of the whole city is entirely dependant on harvey dent's purity. its stupid.

joker says when pushed into a corner, gotham will break. batman says gotham is stronger than that and will persevere. if you believe the latter, you give them the truth trusting they will persevere. otherwise, you lie to them, give them false and hollow hope, and prove the joker right.

No, not really. Gotham is a very corrupt place, and Harvey Dent was a symbol for changing that. If it became public knowledge that Dent became just as corrupt as the people he fought against in office, then that is over. Then people may abandon their hope of changing the system through electing officials. This could result in more copycat vigilantes as well, in a city that has lost all faith in ability of the law to establish order and administer justice.

 

[The Joker]

Intentionally framing someone else, even the Joker, without their expressed consent, would be a compromise of his moral code and integrity. Batman willingly accepted the penalties for the Two-Face killings. Had they framed Joker, then they would have betrayed everything that they fought to keep.

If they were concerned with the most effective means to resolve the situation, then yes, they might have framed Joker. If they believed the ends justify the means, any means, then Batman would have ran over the Joker, let him fall, or even just snapped his neck or shot him. But both Batman and Gordon were also concerned with holding onto their integrity through it. Integrity cannot be taken, only given. They paid a high price for it, between them Rachel Dawe's life, Harvey Dent's friendship (and eventually his life), Commissioner Loeb's life among others, and Batman his reputation and Gordon's partnership.

Just compare Bruce Wayne and Harvey Dent at the end of the film as Batman and Two Face. Both suffered the same tragedy (Rachel's death) and respond in very different ways. Harvey Dent gave away his integrity, while Bruce Wayne refused to allow the Joker to take his away. In the end, Batman has his integrity but sacrifices his reputation while Harvey Dent sacrificed his integrity but keeps his reputation.

Framing another person completely changes the meaning of the ending entirely, one where Joker won.

Excellent post

 

[Motown Marvel]

No, not really. Gotham is a very corrupt place, and Harvey Dent was a symbol for changing that. If it became public knowledge that Dent became just as corrupt as the people he fought against in office, then that is over. Then people may abandon their hope of changing the system through electing officials. This could result in more copycat vigilantes as well, in a city that has lost all faith in ability of the law to establish order and administer justice.

no, its not over. if people are going to abandon their hope, its going to because a precedent was just sent that if you follow in good ol' harvey's footsteps then you're going to be killed by the murderous batman who the cops are completely incapable of stopping because they're entirely incompetent.

why not be like: hey, harvey was a good dude who did good things and set an example that we can all follow. yes, he unfortunately found himself in a uniquely impossible situation that lead to his downfall. so lets not forget what evil can do to good men, and lets continue to fight against it so no more good men, like harvey, need to become victims of evil men, like the joker.

its a simple concept that im pretty sure gotham would understand. if not, then batman's fight is futile, and the city isnt worth saving, and the joker was right. batman says he believes in gotham, he had the chance to prove it, and he failed. even though the city already proved their perseverance. which makes batman and gordons decision all the more mind boggling and pointless.

 

[Godzilla2014]

Excellent post

Thank you!

Also, I have to say that I have heard people say that The Dark Knight should have ended at the showdown between Batman and Joker at the Prewitt Building construction site, because continuing beyond there was pointless. I disagree. I really think that the film benefits from having this scene. If you lopped the conclusion with Two-Face off, the film wouldn't have forgotten it's ideas and themes. It's like the Joker said to Batman, "You didn't think I'd risk losing the battle for Gotham's soul in a fistfight with you?" I think if it had ended there, you would see a lot more reviews accusing it of being "a film that thinks it's smarter than it is."

Thanks to the Two-Face confrontation and the twist afterwards, the film closes with its ideas and themes. We get to see where everyone ended up, the prices that our heroes paid to defeat Joker, and the themes of a hero appearing as the villain. I remember the emotion as Harvey Dent says, "Then why am I the only one who lost everything?", and Batman fights the urge to reveal his identity as Bruce Wayne so that Dent can see that he isn't alone in his loss. After Dent dies, he takes the blame for the Two Face killings. In this, we see an examination of the necessity of truth, and appearance and reality.

It is this sort of depth that, in my opinion, The Dark Knight is superior to films like Spider-Man 2, and my favorite film overall.

 

[Gotham Knight]

no, its not over. if people are going to abandon their hope, its going to because a precedent was just sent that if you follow in good ol' harvey's footsteps then you're going to be killed by the murderous batman who the cops are completely incapable of stopping because they're entirely incompetent.

why not be like: hey, harvey was a good dude who did good things and set an example that we can all follow. yes, he unfortunately found himself in a uniquely impossible situation that lead to his downfall. so lets not forget what evil can do to good men, and lets continue to fight against it so no more good men, like harvey, need to become victims of evil men, like the joker.

its a simple concept that im pretty sure gotham would understand. if not, then batman's fight is futile, and the city isnt worth saving, and the joker was right. batman says he believes in gotham, he had the chance to prove it, and he failed. even though the city already proved their perseverance. which makes batman and gordons decision all the more mind boggling and pointless.

Gordon said himself "5 dead, two of them cops". He was right. Not even Batman could speak out on why Dent would murder policeman. And as far as Gotham knows, none of them were corrupted. And we all know Gordon wouldn't go public that there were cracks in the force who's entire job was supposed to be protecting Gotham. Hence why Batman did what he had too. You point out that Gotham's citizens and even criminals were so selfless, that they wouldn't murder one another to save their own lives. But how are Gotham's citizens supposed to react to the real symbol of hope for their city in Harvey Dent, murdering those they think are putting their lives on the line to protect them?

In this series, Batman isn't some kind of huge public figure. He's more well known by criminals. And he's still sort of an urban legend figure. So I don't think Gotham fully knows what he's all about. Heck, they don't even realize that he saved their lives multiple times. From Ra's and hundreds from The Joker. They don't have a strong enough connection to lose faith seeing him turn corrupted. Truth be told, they probably weren't entirely sure whether or not he was truly a good guy. They would just hear urban legend type stories they weren't entirely sure were true.

So Batman did what he had to do. He finally went to a major public figure, but not one with the symbol he had hoped for. But one that represents all that he fights against. "Sometimes the truth isn't good enough. Sometimes people deserve, to have their faith rewarded". Gotham won't lose hope thinking that this guy they were unsure of, was a phony. But with Harvey, they would have.

 

[Godzilla2014]

Gordon said himself "5 dead, two of them cops". He was right. Not even Batman could speak out on why Dent would murder policeman. And as far as Gotham knows, none of them were corrupted. And we all know Gordon wouldn't go public that there were cracks in the force who's entire job was supposed to be protecting Gotham. Hence why Batman did what he had too. You point out that Gotham's citizens and even criminals were so selfless, that they wouldn't murder one another to save their own lives. But how are Gotham's citizens supposed to react to the real symbol of hope for their city in Harvey Dent, murdering those they think are putting their lives on the line to protect them?

In this series, Batman isn't some kind of huge public figure. He's more well known by criminals. And he's still sort of an urban legend figure. So I don't think Gotham fully knows what he's all about. Heck, they don't even realize that he saved their lives multiple times. From Ra's and hundreds from The Joker. They don't have a strong enough connection to lose faith seeing him turn corrupted. Truth be told, they probably weren't entirely sure whether or not he was truly a good guy. They would just hear urban legend type stories they weren't entirely sure were true.

So Batman did what he had to do. He finally went to a major public figure, but not one with the symbol he had hoped for. But one that represents all that he fights against. "Sometimes the truth isn't good enough. Sometimes people deserve, to have their faith rewarded". Gotham won't lose hope thinking that this guy they were unsure of, was a phony. But with Harvey, they would have.

Great post!

 

[El Payaso]

not being honest about harvey completely undermines the entire movie. the whole time, batman is championing the resolve of gotham city and its citizens, and how when put under pressure they would persevere on the side of good. this was even proven with their impossibly idealized reaction to the boat/bomb situation where even hardened criminals became selflessly heroic. yet when, oh no, their white knight did a bad thing, we cant trust the people to understand why it happened. instead, we need to lie to them for no good reason because we suddenly dont trust them.

The way I see it, Gotham people (some of them at least) can do the right thing precisely because there are people like Batman and Dent inspiring them. Gothamites saw how Dent turned himself in and that's why they felt compelled to do the right thing in the boats situation. If they know Dent was corrupted then they won't feel like doing that kind of sacrifices again.


What I never got is... if Dent said that he was Batman and he died... shouldn't people believe that Batman's dead?

 

[Godzilla2014]

The way I see it, Gotham people (some of them at least) can do the right thing precisely because there are people like Batman and Dent inspiring them. Gothamites saw how Dent turned himself in and that's why they felt compelled to do the right thing in the boats situation. If they know Dent was corrupted then they won't feel like doing that kind of sacrifices again.


What I never got is... if Dent said that he was Batman and he died... shouldn't people believe that Batman's dead?

No. They knew that Dent wasn't Batman after Batman saved Dent's ass from the Joker when he ambushed Dent's transport. In fact, the hospital Dent was in was threatened precisely because Coleman Reese was threatening to expose Batman's identity.

 

[Motown Marvel]

i was about to post one of those long winded detail by detail rebuttal's, but thats a waste of time because it all comes down to the same point:

it was joker's plan to prove that the people of gotham were just like him. and it was batmans intentions to prove him otherwise. yet when the time comes for batman to back up his words with actions, he fails. it undermines everything he said he believes in, and it proves the joker right.

it's that simple.

 

[El Payaso]

Well, when Joker said he was going to blow up a hospital everyone went out of home with guns ready to kill Reese, even a cop. That proved Joker's point long before the boats incident.

 

[Godzilla2014]

i was about to post one of those long winded detail by detail rebuttal's, but thats a waste of time because it all comes down to the same point:

it was joker's plan to prove that the people of gotham were just like him. and it was batmans intentions to prove him otherwise. yet when the time comes for batman to back up his words with actions, he fails. it undermines everything he said he believes in, and it proves the joker right.

it's that simple.

I disagree with you, but I respect your opinion. Actually Batman is right, because even though Harvey Dent was lost, Batman took the blame upon himself for his crimes. It was already proven that Gotham was full of good people in the ferry scene. The potential problem with allowing what Harvey Dent did could be that it might shatter Gotham's remaining faith in their ability to change things through electing government officials, as opposed to resorting to vigilantism, revolution, or other such methods to serve justice. Harvey Dent was a symbol of hope against corruption, but he turned his back on that for revenge, and let's not forget about the fact that the Joker has only just been defeated. Gotham City is full of good people, but they can only take so much at once.

 

[Motown Marvel]

i also think its ridiculous to believe that the entire future of the city rested on harvey dent. its a ridiculous concept that only existed to service a ridiculous plot point.

and if the ferry scene is anything to indicate the nature of gotham's citizens (and that was its point) then im pretty sure they'd be entirely understanding to the plight of harvey dent.

 

[Godzilla2014]

i also think its ridiculous to believe that the entire future of the city rested on harvey dent. its a ridiculous concept that only existed to service a ridiculous plot point.

and if the ferry scene is anything to indicate the nature of gotham's citizens (and that was its point) then im pretty sure they'd be entirely understanding to the plight of harvey dent.

Not the entire future, but the immediate future might. Who knows how they would react. I see this as Batman and Gordon were concerned that the good will of Gotham's citizens might reach its breaking point with Harvey Dent's fall from grace. Plus there's the thing about all the work Harvey Dent did to clean up Gotham's streets potentially being undone if that downfall were made public, which they brought up earlier.

 

[Spider-Fan83]

in a weird way I kinda felt taking the blame, was in his favor, anyway...
it solves some of the problem he came cross throughout the movie...

copy bat's (people were starting to idealizes him, trying to copy him, and putting themselves in danger)

cops were becoming to dependent on him...

criminals were starting to catch on to his "no killing" rule, and were no longer fearing him

by taking the blame, he ruined his public image (so, people would no longer idealizes him) he's now known as a criminal so, cops will no longer rely on him, an it's now believed that batman will kill (striking fear back in to the hearts of the criminals)

 

[Godzilla2014]

in a weird way I kinda felt taking the blame, was in his favor, anyway...
it solves some of the problem he came cross throughout the movie...

copy bat's (people were starting to idealizes him, trying to copy him, and putting themselves in danger)

cops were becoming to dependent on him...

criminals were starting to catch on to his "no killing" rule, and were no longer fearing him

by taking the blame, he ruined his public image (so, people would no longer idealizes him) he's now known as a criminal so, cops will no longer rely on him, an it's now believed that batman will kill (striking fear back in to the hearts of the criminals)

In some ways (like the ones you listed) yes, and some ways no. The police not relying on Batman is a positive, but a negative is that now Batman will have the police working against him, making it harder for him to solve crimes and stop criminals.

 

[El Payaso]

i was about to post one of those long winded detail by detail rebuttal's, but thats a waste of time because it all comes down to the same point:

it was joker's plan to prove that the people of gotham were just like him. and it was batmans intentions to prove him otherwise. yet when the time comes for batman to back up his words with actions, he fails. it undermines everything he said he believes in, and it proves the joker right.

it's that simple.

As I see it, Joker did win. Batman was merely doing damage control.