At the risk of getting ahead of myself (I can tell from the initial comments, I'm probably already in way over my head), let me directly address (as I have in some comments all ready) one of my primary concerns with "The Dark Knight" and movies in general. And that, simply, is that, as I always like to say, if it's in the movie, then let's talk about it. If it's not -- that is, if you're coming up with some scenario or motivation or explanation that a particular image or sound in the movie does not address -- then you can't pretend it's part of the movie. Because, manifestly, it isn't. That's the difference between Ain't-it-cool fanboy speculation and actual movie criticism, based on what's on the screen, not what's in a previous draft of an unpublished comic somewhere....
So, when I asked ("Dark Knight Quiz #1: What's wrong with this picture") for you to consider one of the key shots in "The Dark Knight" (the "punchline,", if you will, to of the opening sequence), one of the things I wanted to get at is the movie's conception (or, at least, the audience's conception) of the Joker as a supernatural being. I've found that discussing "The Dark Knight" can be like discussing Intelligent Design -- in all the worst ways.
For now, let's put aside questions of the movie's violations of its own narrative, character, spatial, temporal, cinematic logic. ("It's a comic-book movie," some people say. "It's not supposed to make any sense!" And yet what genre is more obsessive about the rules of its fictional universe[s] than comics?)
I asked YOU, Dear Reader, to "please leave a comment with your account of the shot AND your assessment of how the Joker planned this getaway. Pay special attention to the timing (dust/debris, busses, traffic signal, arriving cop cars)." My intention was, and is, to get you to look at the shot first, and consider the evidence before your eyes and ears. Why does the shot start where it does, and end where it does? What does it show of the bus's exit from the bank and what does it not show? What are the various noises on the soundtrack composed to suggest?
I was disheartened when a few commenters suggested that I was attempting to encourage fanboy speculation rather than to practice disciplined film criticism, which involves (as they used to say in my university literature, film, drama, and music courses) a "close reading of the text." Honest. That's what I'm after.
Which brings me to this: What do we talk about when we talk about the Joker? I've had (and read, and witnessed) many discussions in which it is said that the Joker cannot be trusted (!), that he does not always tell the truth (!), that he is (as he says) an "agent of chaos," and that he is (as his actions suggest) an obsessive-compulsive or control-freak planner whose personal methods are anti-chaotic, but who desires to create mayhem or anarchy as the result of meticulous planning.
This is where, I think, we get back to Intelligent Design, in which anything that cannot be explained by the evidence before us (i.e., an image or sound in the movie) can be passed off on the wily, (semi-?)omniscient God/Joker, who works in mysterious ways and has no limits on his abilities to anticipate events. The Joker lies. He makes up origin stories about himself. He asks for things (the unmasking and surrender of Batman) that he does not really desire, just to shake things up and foment turmoil. He says things ("You complete me") that are flattering or insulting but that don't really mean anything because he is a nihilist who, as Alfred says, just wants to watch the world burn. (Take a moment here to ask yourself how much social anarchy "The Dark Knight" shows us as a result of the Joker's manipulations. Even those people fleeing on the ferry are so rational and organized that they can conduct an impromptu initiative election [call it Prop 666] on the spot, and every vote is counted. Ah, but that's because he expects them to go all nihilistic hysterical and crazy and they don't, so... what?).
OK, consider this: In a badly constructed sequence, we see a Batman lookalike hanged and splatted against the Mayor of Gotham's window. Later, we see the same thing on television (as Bruce Wayne and Alfred watch). The Batman impostor is lowered to the ground, while in the "live" TV coverage the headline/caption is: "Batman Dead?" Of course, we already know that the real Batman is not dead, but the TV newscaster puts the Joker's tape on the air, evidently without watching it first. This is a key moment in the film, because it does exactly what the newscaster does to his audience in setting up the footage to follow. Newscaster: "Be aware: The image is disturbing."
Right! In case we couldn't tell for ourselves, the image we're about to see is disturbing. It's a pre-recorded (i.e., pre-dead Batman impostor) handheld video made by the Joker. And, apparently, it convinces all of Gotham City that Batman has driven the city crazy (by allowing criminals like the Joker to exist within city limits) and that the best solution to the problem is for Batman to unmask himself and surrender to the authorities for... charges unknown. [Vigilantism, of the non-lethal kind?]
Here is my challenge to you now: Taking key lines from the Joker's tape, I ask you to tell me:
1) Which statements are true?
2) Which statements are false?
3) Which are neither true nor false?
4) Which are both true and false?
5) Which are simply chaotic and anarchical?
AND, most important of all: 6) What evidence does the movie provide to support your readings of 1-5?
Here's what the Joker says:
a) LOOK AT ME! This is how crazy the Batman's made Gotham!
b) You want order in Gotham? Batman has to go.
c) So, Batman must take off his mask and turn himself in.
d) Every day he doesn't... people will die.
e) Starting tonight.
f) I'm a man of my word!
OK, we know the Joker is an agent of anarchy (right? wrong?) and that he's not a man of his word 'cause he lies like crazy. But maybe he's crazy like a fox. Or maybe he's crazy like a crazy person! When is he which, and why does it matter? You tell me.
BONUS: Gordon later says: "The Joker planned to be caught. He wanted me to lock him up in the M.C.U." Does the movie believe that to be true?
FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH: My guesses are here.
Re: comic books and rules.
It's quite logical that comics, fantasy etc have to abide by their own rules very strictly. When discussing the so-called real world, everybody knows if something is possible or not.
But if the normal rules do not apply, then all bets are off and the author has to establish ground rules for his/her creation – otherwise the whole thing makes no sense, and usually unity and harmony are desired effects.
I'm talking about faux-realist texts here, so it's not to be applied everywhere. Meaning Buñuel can do pretty much whatever he damn pleases.
Look, Jim, I could point out that the Rolling Stones are a horrible band that cannot, for the life of them, play in time with each other. (This can be backed up by several recorded examples) I could point out that Neil Young is a sloppy guitar player when playing solos. And that Bob Dylan is a terrible singer plain and simple. Still the music of these artists continues to speak to countless people and has done so for years and years. Either you like their music or you don't.
Your problems with TDK are not unfounded. However, the film has clearly affected a lot of people in a way that many other films have not. I saw TDK twice because I was overwhelmed by what I thought were spectacular performances, cinematography, and storytelling. Either you are able to activate "suspension of disbelief" for TDK or not. Everyone's threshold is different.
I am glad I am able to enjoy the movie without being troubled by the inaccuracies and implausibilities you mention. At 30, I still believe in Santa Claus too.
Alright Jim. I'll play this little game, but not without a few points of my own at the end.
1) "You see, this is how crazy Batman's made Gotham." (while pointing camera at himself)
Verdict: HAZY
Explanation: A few people in batsuits and a clown-faced anarchist don't make up the entirety of Gotham, but they certainly weren't there before Batman.
2) "You want order in Gotham? Batman must take off his mask and turn himself in!"
Verdict: HAZY
Explanation: This statement is designed to test Batman. We have little evidence to support the idea that Joker would willfully stop would such an event occur.
3) "Oh, and every night he doesn't, people will die."
Verdict: HAZY
Explanation: The Joker's goons and he immediately kill the Judge and the Commissioner, and they intend to kill Harvey Dent, but this plan changes once he actually meets Batman face-to-face.
4) "Starting tonight."
Verdict: TRUE
Explanation: Uh, it happens.
5) "I'm a man of my word."
Verdict: HAZY
Explanation: He's a liar in many ways (his claims of "not planning," for example), but this statement exists as punctuation, so that people are frightened by his certitude. On the other hand, he does live up to his promise.
I'm not sure exactly what you're going for here, or what some of your comments mean. You say that Batman would turn himself for "charges unknown," as though vigilantism isn't an actual crime. You claim that "you complete me" means nothing, when it clearly means that the Joker is happy to find someone who appears equally disgusted with status quo morality and law. And you also continue to assert that everyone thinks that the Joker is an omniscient force that can explain away everything, when the majority of people in this blog have conceded that the film is hardly perfect.
Maybe the reason that so many people have reacted with distaste to these exercises is because they find them a little too condescending and self-satisfied. "You saps think the film is actually GOOD? Okay, I'll make it easy for you: look at the pretty picture and tell me what's WRONG."
First, to address something before the "homework assignment":
(Take a moment here to ask yourself how much social anarchy "The Dark Knight" shows us as a result of the Joker's manipulations. Even those people fleeing on the ferry are so rational and organized that they can conduct an impromptu initiative election [call it Prop 666] on the spot, and every vote is counted. Ah, but that's because he expects them to go all nihilistic and crazy and they don't, so... what?)
Well, let's see. The Joker succeeds in scaring people (to the point where they're calling for Batman's head at the press conference, to the point where they are literally fleeing the city). He succeeds in getting several people to try and kill Reese. He succeeds in getting people to vote to blow up criminals (not to mention the guards--always thought it was amusing that they conveniently forgot about them). And, most importantly, he succeeds in getting Harvey Dent (pretty much the embodiment of Law and Justice and Order and Good) to go batshit insane and shoot a bunch of people.
Is he a total success? Nope. Just because he is a nihilist and an anarchist doesn't mean he has to succeed in causing mass anarchy. The movie is about him trying. The fact that he fails has meaning. (Which answers your "so... what?")
--
Anyways. Homework.
a) LOOK AT ME! This is how crazy the Batman's made Gotham!
This isn't exactly a lie. Look at the end of Batman Begins: Gordon considers Joker to be the beginning of an escalation. Is Batman the reason the Joker is around?
Well, as a thief, Joker is able to operate on a massive scale (sixty odd million dollars at a go) because Batman has been pressing the mob, leading the mob to consolidate their money in the few remaining places. So there's that.
Joker's terror campaign is bought and paid for by the mob, who did it because Batman had them on the defensive and then proved they couldn't stop him by taking Lao out of China.
And Joker appeared to them in the first place because Batman interests him and he wanted to see what Batman would do.
So on several levels, Batman is indirectly responsible for Joker's presence in this story.
However, Joker is clearly exaggerating; he was crazy long before Batman came along. It's clear to me from the way Ledger says "cra-AY-zy!" in a very cartoonish way that he's trying to emphasize this point to the public watching, to turn their opinion around. So it's not quite honest. Like most of what Joker says, it's more of a half-truth.
b) You want order in Gotham? Batman has to go.
Again, it's true in a sense. Batman isn't really an agent of order; he's a vigilante, he makes his own rules, and as far as the public's concerned, he's just as bad as the criminals. They turn on him at the press conference because, as both Alfred and Dent say, things are worse now even though they're going to get better.
So, again, it's a half-truth, one which the Joker is presenting deliberately in order to inflame the public.
c) So, Batman must take off his mask and turn himself in.
d) Every day he doesn't... people will die.
e) Starting tonight.
f) I'm a man of my word!
These are all together. C is the Joker's proposal. D is his promise. E is proven by the fact that somebody has, in fact died, and did so before the video was shown. So F is easy to believe if you're watching that. Joker promised somebody would die, and then he killed somebody, so there you go. He sounds like a man of his word. Joker loves to twist his word, though ("I'm only burning my half"), so you can't really trust him. Same with "The bridge and tunnel crowd are in for a surprise." He's a liar but he gets people to trust him.
So, in the terms you asked for... I'd say:
1. True statements: D and E
2. False statements: F
3. Neither true nor false: C
4. Both true and false: A and B
5. Simply anarchical: none of them. All of them are motivated by his desire to create anarchy and mess with Batman but none of them are simply the Joker tossing off a line for no reason.
OK, we know the Joker is an agent of anarchy (right? wrong?) and that he's not a man of his word 'cause he lies like crazy. But maybe he's crazy like a fox. Or maybe he's crazy like a crazy person! When is he which, and why does it matter? You tell me.
He's an "agent" of anarchy in that that's what he's trying to create.
He's not a man of his word, because he lies, and twists his promises ("I'm only burning my half").
He's "crazy like a fox", ie., smart.
He's crazy like a crazy person, ie., outside of the social norms. His belief systems are very very messed up, and since he's been in and out of Arkham I'd say it's fair to call him crazy. Wanting anarchy and having no regard for human life are probably enough to justify that.
When is he which? He's always all of those things. Why does it matter? Because part of the movie is trying to understand and interpret this confusing person; both the audience and characters in the movie.
--
A couple random points and quibbles:
At the risk of getting ahead of myself (I can tell from the initial comments, I'm probably already in way over my head), let me directly address (as I have in some comments all ready) one of my primary concerns with "The Dark Knight" and movies in general. And that, simply, is that, as I always like to say, if it's in the movie, then let's talk about it. If it's not -- that is, if you're coming up with some scenario or motivation or explanation that a particular image or sound in the movie does not address -- then you can't pretend it's part of the movie. Because, manifestly, it isn't. That's the difference between Ain't-it-cool fanboy speculation and actual movie criticism, based on what's on the screen, not what's in a previous draft of an unpublished comic somewhere....
Jim, movies can imply, can't they? Editing is an excellent example. If a movie cuts from somebody saying "I've got to get to Germany" to somebody leaving the Munich airport, does that mean there's a flaw there because how the hell did they travel? No, it's implied that they flew in a plane. The same goes for much of the Dark Knight. When Joker says "these two people are wired to a bomb" and then it shows a warehouse full of oil drums next to a bomb, you don't need to explain it, it's implied that he and his goons set that up.
A movie doesn't have to explain everything; it is enough that you yourself can come up with a plausible explanation (like, "yeah, he probably flew to Germany on a plane" or "yeah, he probably had henchmen driving the buses"). It's when a film presents an impossibility, or something so improbable that it snaps you out of the movie, that the film has a problem. Personally the Dark Knight swept me past all questions.
--
He asks for things (the unmasking and surrender of Batman) that he really does not desire, just to shake things up and foment turmoil.
I think it's pretty clear that the Joker wanted to see what Batman would do, given the choice between letting people die and taking off his mask. Batman assumes the Joker wants to kill him. "I don't want to kill you! I wanted to see what you'd do, and you didn't disappoint." says Joker. The point isn't really the outcome of the terrible choice, just like I'm sure it didn't matter to the Joker whether Batman saved Harvey Dent or Rachel. The point was simply to present the terrible choice and observe the result in the person having to choose.
--
In a really badly constructed sequence, we see a Batman lookalike hanged and splatted against the Mayor of Gotham's window.
Oh, come on, Jim, don't just say that. Explain why you think it is badly constructed. Film criticism, right? Close reading?
The Joker in the movie did not strike me as supernatural as rather a crazy gang leader who chooses to dress up and look like a clown(but even the clown outfit and make-up seemed sloppy)and gets alot of criminals to join him in his cause of taking over Gotham City.I think he's more in the realm of a mass terrorist than a man with uncanny powers.
The comics and the campy 60's tv showed The Joker as a wise cracking clown who just commited crimes.
However,I think if The Joker existed in real life
he would be exactly how this movie portrayed him.
I feel sorry for people who can't just enjoy a film for having to nitpick every frame for inconsistencies. Searching for perfection in an imperfect world is futile. What do YOU consider to be a masterpiece? Seriously, no joke. You are aware that even the very best film you've ever seen has a problem somewhere within its frames, don't you? I love a LOT of movies, some I should (Goodfellas), some I shouldn't (The Whole Nine Yards), but I know that even the ones that connect with me on every level have problems...but I don't mind because I don't believe a human being is capable of making anything that is perfect in every way. But I guess that's the struggle; to keep trying.
I'm sorry for not partaking in your survey/questionnaire though I'm sure you'll get a bunch of takers.
*For the record, I'm not a Dark Knight fanboy (very good film, not great)
Expecting fanboys blinded by Batman/Joker love to take one second to analyze the stupidity of The Dark Knight with even a modicum of thought is an impossibility commensurate with finding two like snowflakes to paraphrase a famous comedian.
Films create their own world and the rules for that world and this is fine. I know that a real person jumping over a hundred feet from one construction crane to another would probably have his arms ripped off, but I accept it from James Bond in Casino Royale because the filmmakers make it believable.
But nothing in The Dark Knight makes sense, even in the physics challenged world of comic book movies. The Dark Knight is all flash, but no substance and the fact people are still talking about it does not make it important. It's just hanging around like a fart in a phone booth.
As much as I liked Batman Begins (which I thought really energized the moribund Batman series) is as much as I disliked The Dark Knight. For all The Dark Knight's pretense, it is no more intelligent than Batman Forever.
Nipples on the bat suit is more honest than the bat cycle riding up a wall to execute a turn. Surely there are better ways to maneuver than running into a wall.
To Dark Knight fanboys, you are allowed to love this film, but don't try and tell me it represents anything more than just a big moneymaker for Time Warner. It doesn't advance filmmaking one bit, nor was it supposed to.
I understand. People who call you an obsessive fanboy for trying to pick apart a Batman movie are the same as those evil, conservative people promoting intelligent design. Do you really expect your readership to be this gullible to believe this logic?
Everything the Joker says is both true and false. If Bruce Wayne revealed himself as Batman, the Joker would have come up with another test for someone else. He would have kept testing until someone failed so he could start killing.
See the scene with the mob in the warehouse - the Joker promised them their money back. He kept that promise. He then burned his half of the money. Which so happened to be attached to the mob's half. He both kept his promise and broke his promise at the same time.
The Joker was going to kill people and blow stuff up simply because he wanted to. The fact that people failed his tests gave him the moral justification (in his opinion) to do so. By failing his tests, the Joker was able to prove that everyone was as bad as him. Which, by the way, is the entire point of the ferry scene at the end - it's the first time someone passes one of his tests and you can see the shock in his face.
As much as I can believe that for years people didn't notice that Clark Kent was Superman minus glasses, I can believe that a guy dressed up in clown makeup is an evil genius that can plan crimes a dozen moved ahead of everyone else.
Look, this is fanboy nitpicking, not film criticism. I know you hate to hear it, but its true.
The movie worked for me on the simplest of levels and now you're convincing me that it is also a fascinating text. It's a bad movie how exactly?
I have to admit, I often read this blog with apprehension, afraid I'll read something that will ruin a movie for me. But your criticism of TDK is actually making me appreciate it even more.
There are two logical issues that I noticed and thought of are:
1.Why would the gotham city news network go along with the live,impromtu and disturbing footage from The Joker by putting text that says "Batman Dead?" or sensationalizing it by "Be Aware:Image is disturbing"?.
2.Wouldn't the sheer idea of school buses pulling out of a bank seem supicious to those outside the bank or on the street?.
Vigilantism. The charge is for vigilantism.
Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps your criticism of some films is actually quite arbitrary?
I can see a universe where, for some bizarre reason, you decided you didn't like No Country for Old Men. I don't believe that movie would fare MUCH better under the weight of the intensive scrutiny you've been putting Dark Knight under. In this world, you point out how No Country is largely filmed in a very unimaginative cinematic grammar of back and forth coverage, that its take on morality is purposefully convoluted to the point of being meaningless and that the ending was an unsatisfying cop out.
This is not to say No Country is a bad movie; it is a terrific one, and better than the Dark Knight in my estimation. But my point is that, basically, no movie is actually good when you're determined to use some extremely convoluted form of non-logic to write it off.
"Charming little character stories are weightless and unsubstantial. Who cares what happens to these unimportant people? Isn't it just petulant whining?"
BUT
"Pictures taking place in the direst of circumstances are just self-important 'important' movies, made as Oscar bait and morally reprehensible."
OR
"This movie was too austere and distant."
BUT
"This movie was sentimental and drippy."
I don't appreciate these kinds of film reviews and I don't appreciate what you've been doing with The Dark Knight. This is not film criticism; it is "prove how you are smarter by dragging down a holy cow"-ism of the worst kind.
I also don't appreciate some of the arrogant quotes I've seen you using in these past few entries, like the one about Dark Knight being an "important BAD movie". Um, so we can now objectively say it's a "bad" movie because a small minority collective of film reviewers have decided it is? Versus the majority view of a population that wildly enjoyed the film?
Ridiculous.
I love your blog and your post on Fight Club and depression is still one of my favourite things I've ever read on the Internet(bookmarked and saved on my laptop for eternity), but I've become more and more disappointed with your recent entries.
Jim, I have no idea what you're driving at with this questionnaire.
The Joker is definitely an unreliable narrator. The literary critic James Wood notes two types: the reliably unreliable narrator, in which the narrator is always lying and the audience can decode what he really means simply by reversing his statements.
Then there’s the unreliably unreliable narrator (the category in which the Joker falls), wherein the narrator sometimes tells the truth and sometimes lies through his teeth.
Do we know that the Joker is an “agent of chaos?” Well, we know that’s what he claims to be. I think the beauty of the way Joker is written is that we never know where he’s coming from. We don’t know which of his statements are true, which are false, how much of the chaos he’s planning, and how much of it he’s winging.
So when is he which and why does it matter? A) It’s impossible to say and B) It only matters to audiences that want complete order in their narratives, and character psychology as traceable as if it were displayed in a flow chart.
Re: the bus scene—it irritated me too when I first saw it. Joker runs a small operation at that point in the movie; the coordination required is implausible even for him.
I'll just address these statement by statement and try and get the answers to the questions themselves in there as I go.
a: This statement is true, or at least the Joker believes it to be. The Joker makes it clear that Batman was at very least an inspiration to him several times throughout the film, and his desire to involve Batman in his schemes provides ample evidence beyond his difficult-to-trust words to bear this out (not to mention the obvious timing issue--Batman shows up, then Joker shows up).
b: This is both true and a lie. Here the Joker is attempting to create anarchy, as he does when he calls in to the television program to ask the citizens of Gotham to kill the ratting lawyer. He's trying to incite the populace against Batman, because of his oft-mentioned love for chaos and repeated desire to sink Gotham into madness, as well as he stated desire to poke Batman to see how he'll react. However, he clearly believes that Batman is responsible for the chaos in Gotham, and in that sense the statement could be true.
c: This is more a command than a statement, unless it's combined with "d", so I'll address it there.
d: This is the truth, but may also be a lie--That is to say, the Joker is definitely going to kill people if Batman doesn't take off his mask (which is what happens in the movie), but there's absolutely no guarantee he'll stop if Batman does.
e: Well, he does, in fact, kill the guy, so this appears to be true.
f: This is both true and a lie. The Joker obviously lies a lot, but he seems to enjoy making promises that he keeps truthfully but in ways that upset people--for instance, when he only burns "his half" of the money. He notably doesn't say that he's honest or that you can trust him, only that he's a man of his "word", and words are open to interpretation.
I also see absolutely no reason why the Joker should not simultaneously be "crazy like a fox" and "crazy like a crazy person".
Let me add--
I really find this whole exercise a tad bit condescending. I think you're applying a standard to this film that you wouldn't to virtually any other movie. I know you're a great lover of Fight Club, and it seems to me that virtually every criticism of the Joker you're levying could be just as easily be levied of Tyler Durden. Yet, in that instance, you seem to be perfectly happy to let the realism of the film slip slightly so as to be a more effective metaphor for a charismatic and preternaturally wily central antagonist with only half-explained motivations.
Oddly enough, I'm not a big fan of Fight Club--I think it's horribly overrated, and that much of what people draw from it is based on their own speculative interpretation with little support from the actual film. So to each their own, I suppose.
JE: Thank you for participating in good faith, Stephen. One big difference between "Dark Knight" and "Fight Club," though (SPOILER FOLLOWS): Tyler Durden is a figment of the narrator's imagination. That would make an interesting Batman movie -- where the id/villain with supernatural powers exists only in Batman's imagination, a way for his tortured mind to complete itself....
Now *that* would have been an interesting film--the idea of the Joker as, truly, the other personality of Batman. Impossible to film in this manner, but different.
I found THE DARK KNIGHT morally repugnant on almost every level, which upsets me more than its incoherency. I'm sorry, but I like my comic book heroes to be HEROIC, and this Batman is on the same level as Dick Cheney when it comes to fighting crime. Beating up the Joker? Spying on Gotham's cell phone users? Hey, it's all OK, because the "good guys" are doing it.
The fact that I had a hard time following the action in almost every sequence and that the story logic is patently ridiculous is merely icing on the cake. It makes me physically ill that people think this is one of the greatest films of all time. Please. I could name ten films off the top of my head that are far better.
Hi Jim,
One of the issues the film appears to be about is "chaos" - I'm just guessing here because I've only bothered to see the film once. Perhaps the Joker is an extended metaphor for The Dark Knight's debated state of incoherence. Maybe the film's effect on the viewer is supposed to be utter confusion. Is it safe to assume that TDK was made to fulfill desired filmic conventions? Will TDK become the next cult classic that is "so bad, it's "good"?
Determining how much of a hypocrite a (fictional) person may or may not be is an exercise in character judgment. Will it really lead to a better understanding of the film? Or is the intent to pick on a popular movie that was the product (or victim?) of the Hollywood hype machine? When will you go back to critiquing good movies like "Zodiac" and "No Country For Old Men"? I'm sure their sequels are in the making as we speak.
Lynne--
The movie repeatedly states that Batman isn't really a hero. The whole point of the movie is about the contrast between "right and wrong" and "lawful or unlawful". Batman is, by nature, a criminal who commits crimes in order to try and do the right thing. But, as the movie makes clear, he respects and admires people who act lawfully to do the right thing--he just can't be one of them. There's a reason the people of Gotham need Harvey Dent.
As to him beating up the Joker while in police custody--the movie clearly shows that to be a futile, pointless action, and doesn't seem to endorse it.
And I absolutely resent the implication that Batman is "no better than Dick Cheney". Cheney is an elected representative of the USA, while Batman is an individual and a vigilante. The movie clearly holds the former group (Dent, for example) to different standards. The point of Batman is that he can be an outcast apart from society, protecting it and fighting evil by breaking its rules. Cheney, like Dent, is not just a part of society but a leader and representative of it, and when he breaks the rules he actually damages the very idea of rules. That's much more dangerous.
As a critical fan of the movie, I'm planning on actually answering Jim's questionnaire, but let me ask a simple question.
When, exactly, did Jim say that he disliked the movie, or that he thought it was roundly bad?
Jim--
(Fight Club SPOILERS below...)
That would make an interesting Batman movie, definitely, and similar ideas have been played out in other comic books before. However, in this instance, I'm not sure it makes a whole lot of difference as to the point. Just because Durden is imaginary doesn't mean the remarkable-to-the-point-of-supernatural abilities he has don't still need to be transferred to "Jack". After all, *someone* accomplishes what he does, and *someone* must have a compelling motive for such. Durden's half-baked philosophy is still just as half-baked.
And maybe that's why I have trouble enjoying the movie as much as many people do--because so many of the people I know who enjoyed it seem to view it as a revelation about modern society, where Durden's sound-bite nihilism is taken as wisdom, rather than as a manifestation of Jack's unprocessed, poorly-rationalized anxiety.
People viewing The Joker as a cult anti-hero the way they do Durden bothers me in much the same way, actually.
A couple of things.
I think Jim should start taking into consideration that these clips should be included in one big post. Or at the very least, the ones that share similarities in the criticism's subject to be included in different ones instead of going one by one. I appreciate more a film's analysis instead of wide, unfounded generalities of how bad or great something is. But the fact is, these questions and cited clips are too small of a subject to justify one post and expect for people not to drift away into a wider subject.
Second, the language in the discussion of TDK hasn't been all that impressive, but I'm a little disheartened that this has extent itself to here. I love a good laugh as much as the next guy, but one can tell when someone is being something of a snob with all this rhetoric of everyone who is in defense of TDK is a blind fanboy. This hasn't been from Emerson too much (though I can notice some of the condencending language quite well), but really in the eventual commentators arguing against TDK and associating it as a film that has only been liked by fanboys. It is an obviously cheap attempt to make the film look stupid. Lets pretend people like Ebert, or Dargis, or Berardinelli haven't supported it. And the comparison above between Shumacher's film and Nolan's strikes me as particularly ridiculous.
Oh, and one last thing. Not that I want to keep giving suggestions on what should be done on this blog, but I, for one, believe that above all the subjects that have been written in TDK, an article on the comparison between FIGHT CLUB's Tyler Durden, NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN's Anton Chigurh and THE DARK KNIGHT's Joker character would be interesting, and see how much similar or different these characters that defy their realities really are.
I'm going to see "Waltz With Bashir" so I'll have to make this quick...
Here is my challenge to you now: Taking key lines from the Joker's tape, I ask you to tell me:
1) Which statements are true?
2) Which statements are false?
3) Which are neither true nor false?
4) Which are both true and false?
5) Which are simply chaotic and anarchical?
AND, most important of all: 6) What evidence does the movie provide to support your readings of 1-5?
Here's what the Joker says:
a) LOOK AT ME! This is how crazy the Batman's made Gotham!
I think it's arguable how 'crazy' the Joker is. Citizens of Gotham likely believe he is, based on that video, but we see more of him behind the scenes, scheming, manipulating people. We see he knows what he's up to.
I believe he's very aware of his actions... but he's unaware what's really driving them (like Batman, a way of making sense of tragedies in his life).
His actions are sane, a calculated performance, but his motivations are not. Or maybe they are and I'm reading too much into his tragedies, which could be superficial. The Joker's eyes when the bombs don't go off, signal to me that we're looking at a deeply sad, damaged man...
and a man who seems aware of what's happening.
I'm not a doctor Jim, I can't draw the line where sanity ends and madness begins.
b) You want order in Gotham? Batman has to go.
c) So, Batman must take off his mask and turn himself in.
Well, up until now, Batman has been the main ingredient for cleaning up the streets. But now he's brought on The Joker (who seems inspired by Batman to go to extreme measures) and so The Joker is trying to convince Gotham to turn on Batman. Not that that will help. I think The Joker would go on without Batman. (And crime in general certainly would.) The reason I say The Joker would go on is because, although he seems to assume Batman will always show up, he goes and does all his terrorizing in the final act without Batman's knowledge of what will happen.
But I think it's indicated in the interrogation scene - "You complete me" - that The Joker enjoys it more if Batman is there, as a plaything. But he also enjoys tormenting Batman by turning the city against him. He has a sort of masochistic relationship with Batman.
d) Every day he doesn't... people will die. e) Starting tonight.
Well, the script seems to flow as if these events are all happening over the course of a week or so.
Loeb and the judge die the night The Joker says that people will die, the next day some randoms are murdered and at the scene of the crime they discover the mayor is next but Gordon 'dies' (instead of the mayor), then a bunch of cops (in the helicopter/ cop cars) and likely some firefighters (from the burning truck), then Rachel, then it's going to be Coleman Reese but The Joker turns it over to the city... they fail but that's alright because The Joker still has the ferry, and, if that fails, Harvey... who does not fail. So everyday, people did die, starting that night.
f) I'm a man of my word!
Alright... that isn't exactly true. And is maybe a joke of his in that he's not exactly a man of his word. He finds a way to do what he said, but put a spin on it. Dent does something similar towards the end. "I said it couldn't hurt your chances." He's being true to what he said, but it's all how you interpret what he said.
Somebody above points out how The Joker burned his half of the money... Really, he burns it all because he feels all the mob's money is his half (of the city's).
I think, when you break it down, The Joker is just a bastard who will screw you over in one way or another. He's not God so much as the devil. I think that's how Nolan looked at him... to a degree. The devil in human form. When Batman arrives at his lookout tower at the end, there's three dogs guarding him, like the three-headed dog that guards Hades. So, from a symbolic perspective, there is some devil imagery.
From a... does he have supernatural powers perspective? You still haven't convinced me that he does anything supernatural.
At best, you've convinced me he's got a mad streak of luck and that the movie, for viewers like you, needed to explicitly show him learning how to make bombs.
*****
JE: Even those people fleeing on the ferry are so rational and organized that they can conduct an impromptu initiative election [call it Prop 666] on the spot, and every vote is counted. Ah, but that's because he expects them to go all nihilistic and crazy and they don't, so... what?
So that shows he underestimated them. I think that's the whole point of that sequence. "This city just showed you..."
I do see what you mean though. Maybe Nolan could have turned the boat into a riot. Especially considering this is the first boat and these should be the people antsiest about getting out alive. Or maybe they're just Gotham's most affluent and paid to get off first. But, even in that scenario, that doesn't necessarily mean they're the most rationale or that they wouldn't go save a la "The Exterminating Angel".
All and all, I think Nolan is trying to show the best of the best handling this situation. The calmest and most logical in this situation.
Moreover, he's posing the question to the audience. What would you do?
The people on the boat seem to be ideal everypeople. Not so sophisticated that they discuss their options, not so unsophisticated that they become barbarians. Middlemenandwomen that won't sway our own feelings too much one way or the other but will show us how we'd like to believe we would act. And, perhaps, maybe even would.
*****
JE: Take a moment here to ask yourself how much social anarchy "The Dark Knight" shows us as a result of the Joker's manipulations.
He gave me enough to work with between Harvey Dent, The Joker himself, the media coverage of the Joker, the assassination attempt of Coleman Reese (random people in the city and the cops), people evacuating the city, the media and cops turning against Batman, Batman going to the extreme measures he does (and beating The Joker to no avail) and the final ferry scene where, yeah, they don't do it... but you can see how close they come to it. If there was somebody on that boat willing to push the button... that would have been that.
Also, somebody on here is complaining that the news is playing into Joker's hands by playing up how disturbing the video is... well... that's what they do! Happens all the time, just flick on any news ticker. It's death this, death that. And they do these "this is disturbing" warnings, really they're just trying to rope you in to watching.
*****
So much for making that quick...
I liked the commentary on the bus scene. Watching the movie it immediately occurred to me that there was something wrong there. It seemed like they tried just too hard to make the Joker too slick.
In regards to the tape, I started writing an answer but it got too dizzyingly complicated. Especially for someone who doesn't own the movie and can't go back to check things.
My overall take on this speech and others in the movie is that the Joker is a liar. He lies about almost everything and this is obviously underscored by his different stories about how he got his scars. He is adept at manipulating people, especially the mentally damaged. His talk with Dent in the hospital is a great example of this. He's talking bs, Dent knows it's bs but it's the bs Dent needs to hear.
This tape is pure pr for the Joker and like good pr it mixes truth, lies and many points in between. The truth about him seems to me to be that he hates people in general, he is most definitely a fastidious planner, he imagines himself and later Batman as being above normal people and that he is (based strictly on what is shown on screen) ridiculously lucky at times.
I don't think a film that I liked as much has ever left such a bad taste in my mouth as this one. The sheer amount of stupid defences and smug criticisms (the web seems to be devided into people who love it beyond all reason and those who dislike and are proud of it) is one of the most dispiriting film movements and counter-movements of the past year. I can't fathom why people can't be content with their own opinions of this movie.
Except for the first round of reviews of the film, all the conversation seems to be a counter to the opposing view. I personally was a bit disappointed in the coverage of such writers as David Bordwell or Mr. Emerson or Ted Pigeon, which, published after the film was released, focused on debunking the praise it got, and never really analyzed what is there. Despite the assertion that that is ALL you are doing, there is more to a film than the bottom line of characters or scenes. I missed the genuine reaction of yourself and others, who instead seemed poised to take on what others have said about it. That gut reaction of those who loved it is what made it the film event of the year- analyzing it on other grounds, without ever getting to the core of why it was popular seemed, and still seems a bit sheepish, trying to nip both the film and it's followers at the bud.
That's somehing that I miss in general in a lot of film blogging. The lack of actually reviewing films. The reactionary nature it can sometimes take on. As I said, I liked The Dark Knight a lot. I was looking for some less than stellar opinions to help me hone in on my problems with the film, but there are still none to be found, only the continuing "The film is a cultural landmark!" vs. "I'm not sure it even qualifies as film". Most disheartening.
a) false
b) neither true nor false
c) false
d) true, Joker does start killing off people.
e) true, I think so, I'd have to watch the movie again to be sure.
f) neither true nor false because the Joker could change his mind at anytime, so yes he's a man of his word to a certain degree.
You're (Jim) getting some flack from this TDK analysis but I'm getting a kick out of it. I think if people are going to say that TDK is the end all and be all of superhero movies they should be prepared to analyse the film in detail.
If you get a chance if you are browsing in a bookstore you should take a look at David Mazzuchelli's visual essay in the back of the newer printing of Batman: Year One. He provides some interesting takes on what he and Frank Miller did with the character in that seminal comic and reveals some of the misgivings he has about how realistic they made the character.
a) false
b) neither true nor false
c) false
d) true, Joker does start killing off people.
e) true, I think so, I'd have to watch the movie again to be sure.
f) neither true nor false because the Joker could change his mind at anytime, so yes he's a man of his word to a certain degree.
You're (Jim) getting some flack from this TDK analysis but I'm getting a kick out of it. I think if people are going to say that TDK is the end all and be all of superhero movies they should be prepared to analyse the film in detail.
If you get a chance if you are browsing in a bookstore you should take a look at David Mazzuchelli's visual essay in the back of the newer printing of Batman: Year One. He provides some interesting takes on what he and Frank Miller did with the character in that seminal comic and reveals some of the misgivings he has about how realistic they made the character.
a)Batman has made Gotham crazy--via escalation. So I guess, true?
He somehow knows batman's the only reason he has existence as a supervilain. So he knows this is true
b)Well, gotham is a world of superheros and supervillains now, so screw it. FALSE!
Does he actually want batman to go? At that moment we think yes, but later we're shown different.
c)aren't c & b the same?
d)we don't know what's going on in his head, so this is hazy, and doesn't even matter, really.
e)& f)no, he's not a man of his word. He's very hypocritical, but the thing is, he's OK with it. He doesn't place such value on morals as if they're incorruptible--'cause he knows they're flaccid.
Think of him as a crackhead who's completely utterly unreliable and has gotten used to being hypocritical.
Evidence of all this? The whole movie!
My problem is him picking up a goal--setting out to "corrupt!" everyone. Why all of a sudden is he able to follow rules just for this purpose?
I'll agree that the Dark Knight has its share of problems, and by no means earns the "Greatest Movie Ever" title that so many want to throw at it. However, I think that you may be looking at the Joker's character in the wrong way.
The character's ambiguity is not a fault of the film, but rather an asset. Contrary to popular opinion, the movie is not ABOUT the Joker -- he just happened to be a popular icon among rabid fanboys. Instead, the film is about other characters' reactions TO him, i.e. how far they'll stretch until they snap, whether they'll be willing to bend or break the law in order to stop him, etc. He's a symbol for the ultimate stressful situation, the catalyst for the real drama of the film, not a full character whose psychology was meant to be analyzed (which is why, I think, he gives us contradicting Freudian-sounding origin stories). When he tells Harvey in his hospital bed that he's not a "planner," I don't believe we're supposed to be focusing on what's going on in Joker's head, but rather what's going on in Dent's.
I'm not placing The Dark Knight in league with the Bible by any means, but I studied the Book of Job in college, and trying to analyze the Joker's behavior seems just as pointless as trying to figure out the cosmic reasons for Job's torture. Why do bad things happen to good people? We'll never know, but it's how those people REACT to tragedy that makes a story mean something. And just as that book is called "Job" and not "God" or "Satan," this film is called "The Dark Knight" and not "Joker." If you want to find fault with the film, find it in the reactions that other characters have to this clearly symbolic figure, instead of trying to make sense of what was left intentionally ambiguous.
I really don't think it's true that the same criticisms Jim's applying to the Joker could be applied to Tyler Durden.
Everything about how Tyler Durden functions as an antagonist is more coherent and precise.
What is his worldview?
Durden: That the easily obtained material comforts of corporatized America are emasculating, cutting men off from their true animal nature.
Joker: That people will act like savages if they're traumatized enough.
Why does he feel this way?
Durden: Because he's the alter-ego of a guy who bought into consumerism, only to find it unfulfilling.
Joker: Because he's the Joker. If you knew why, then that would ruin it.
How does the movie justify his worldview?
Durden: By depicting American life as repetitive and monotonous in a way that the viewer can, hopefully, recognize and identify with.
Joker: It doesn't. Often the characters do snap like the Joker seems to expect that they will. Often they don't. The result is pretty arbitrary. But the movie expects you to perceive a non-existent depth to the Joker's understanding of things because he's such a good bank robber/eyeball-gouger.
How does the antagonist accomplish his goals?
Durden: First by creating a space where American men can reconnect with their "true" natures. Then by channelling those guys' awakened aggression into sabotage, with the aim of destroying corporations.
Joker: Basically, by antagonizing people until they crack. But also by simply defying the stereotype of a normal criminal. Basically any kind of sadism, or any kind of unnecessary flourish, can be defined into the character.
That lack of precision is what Jim is getting at here, I think. You could take any crime committed by the Joker and replace it with half a dozen other things and the character would make just as much sense.
The same isn't true about Durden. It wouldn't make sense for Durden to behave as the Joker does. But the Joker could absorb most of Durden's schemes into his character. ("Come on. Hit me!")
A lot of commenters here seem to feel that the lack of definition to the Joker's character is a strength, rather than a weakness. Why?
As a staunch fan of the Stones, Mr. Young and Mr. Dylan, I take offense to Tom Conlon's comment. Besides, none of those words-can-not-describe-musical genius's popularity can compete with the half a billion dollar "Cult of TDK"
A point that is mentioned but otherwise ignored, and which makes the entire discussion somewhat futile, is that is a comic book story, with comic book characters.
The distinction with characters modeled more or less on reality isn't fair. Comic books are essentially myths populated by (initially) broadly drawn archetypes. However detailed and nuanced they may evolve into is quite beside the point - they still defined exclusively by their (exclusive) role in the meta-plot of whatever may be happening.
The philosophies explored and dilemmas set forth in a comic book/graphic novel all come from a kind of "illustration" of much richer substance; the outline is there, but like the book's pictures itself, it emphasizes certain details in the panel for effect, rather than display fully modeled set pieces.
Perhaps this is the trouble with both sides of the TDK divide. One side won't accept that on a very fundamental level, this material should be given some leeway in terms of character consistency and story plausibility. The other side takes the opposite extreme and refuses to acknowledge such leeway is warranted and work is fully complete.
I think the TDK fails in trying to go too far and be (ahem) "so serious". It involves too many silly character moments on the screen that exist merely to belabor the point that they are character moments on the screen. There's a really good (maybe great) 80 minutes of superhero movie, stretched very thin into some two hours.
TDK, however, won't be the end of this debate. "The Watchmen" is slated for 09 release, and a backstory of Wolverine (of X-Men) already has trailers on RT. TDK was just the beginning. We're embarking on an era of fanboy-dom the likes of which we've never seen.
Ugh. My head hurts. Too many posts and comments and questions about this Dark Knight.
Summer is over. Time to put away this blockbuster for awhile and move on. I mean, why so serious?
Jim, I might be missing something because I'm still a bit unclear on the point of these exercises. Are you trying to generate some sort of civil, rational discussion? Or are you trying to prove that your feelings on the Dark Knight are more valid than others because your feelings are based on some sort of objective criterion?
If it's the former, you've sort of failed. I would say it was through no fault of your own, but to be honest some of your language (AICN fanboy, etc.) was bound to instigate the very people you supposedly wished to discourage. You're smart enough to know that, so maybe you're trying to play your own "Joker's game"?
Or not. I read too much in to things when I get too much alcohol in my system.
(Fight Club SPOILERS again)
Dave Hunter--
First of all, your analysis is dependent on summary, and the summaries are dependent on your perspective. I could produce answers to the same questions that would be just as accurate as yours, but make the Joker sounds consistent and Durden foolish.
For instance:
Why does he feel this way?
Joker: Because he wants to justify his own madness by proving that others are susceptible to the same impulses.
Durden: Lots of people's lives are boring, so what's his excuse? Some vague stuff about his father is all the movie gives us.
Another example: You say Durden's actions are more "precise" than the Joker's, but his big scheme is to blow up some credit card companies? Sounds like it could be a great blow against consumerism, except that the movie explains this by saying Tyler wants to erase the debts and send everyone "back to zero"? Huh? Now it sounds more like an egalitarian, class-warring gesture than an anti-consumerist one. In contrast, the Joker's schemes are justified consistently by his desire to spread chaos. Everything he does, he does to destabilize Gotham and its protectors.
And what does Durden's philosophy say about, say, individuality? On the one hand, you're not your fucking Khakis. Don't be just one of the unthinking mob subsumed into the miasma of corporate group-think. On the other hand, join Project Mayhem, give up your name, don't ask questions. The position of the movie seems to be not simply that American culture is dehumanizing, but that Durden's extremist response to it is just as dehumanizing. Does he justify this because he sees himself as some kind of messiah? Does he actually want to be a king in his new world of men in loin cloths hunting down elk? Or is this all just a justification for his self-destruction, and he's mostly interested in going out with a bang?
The Joker seems much clearer, to me. He wants to spread chaos and insanity, and he only cares about staying alive long enough to do it. His schemes all match up with that goal. And at any point where he seems prepared to die, it's because he's expecting one of his victims--the people he wants to corrupt--to be the one to do it, thus proving their ideals hollow and their morality insubstantial, just as he predicted.
And Jim wasn't only concerned about inconsistencies in focus, but at the seemingly supernatural cunning and prognostication of the Joker. Tyler seems to have that in spades. He has charisma that any cult-leader would envy, enthralling average, every-day people by the hundreds or thousands, so much that he can pull off the destruction of some of the most important buildings in the country. He's infiltrated police forces, and he can predict his other half's every move (which sounds easy, as they're the same person, but it isn't. You couldn't predict your own every move days in advance, under pressure, without writing it down and performing it like a script). He does all this while seeming to never sleep (which is physically only possible for a few days), yet maintaining, if not exactly rationality, then at least a very quick and active mind. He does what he can do because the story needs him to, not because any actual human could accomplish this--yet no one has to justify that by saying "it's only a comic book movie" or accusing it of destroying the realism.
I'm not saying Durden's supernatural abilities are a bad thing--I explained my actual problems with the movie a little above, and that's not one. But they're very similar to Jim's gripes about the Joker's extreme cleverness. And I'm not saying all the contradictions I attempted to create in Durden's philosophy are important or even valid, but I can certianly make an argument for them and they could certainly bother someone not predisposed to take the movie seriously.
And that's the thing, and that's here I draw the equivalence. People who enjoyed Fight Club see those contradictions as, if anything, part of the film's depth. A movie shouldn't be concerned about coming up with a true, flawless, and beautiful philosophy for its characters--certainly not its villains. If those philosophies have grains of truth, or at least ideas that resonate with people, that's enough. Taking them to illogical extremes and having them be poorly thought out is the reason these characters are antagonists, after all. If their philosophy were flawless, they'd be heroes and sages, not maniacs trying to blow up buildings and bring down society.
And it seems to me that the reason Durden's philosophical shortcomings bother me is that I didn't love the movie, and the people who do love it seem to embrace ideas I find somewhat shallow and inconsistent. Meanwhile, the reason the Joker's philosophical shortcomings bother him seems to be that he didn't love The Dark Knight, and the people who do love it seem to embrace ideas he finds somewhat shallow and inconsistent.
Hence why I see some real equivalency here. They're very similar characters, and whether you call their philosophies complex or contradictory, or their unrealistic abilities powerful metaphor or laughable indulgence, seems to be based entirely on what you thought of the films in question to begin with.
I think TDK is an excellent film which definitely has its flaws, so I'm not surprised to see its share of detractors such as yourself.
But what I'm really surprised is that, for someone who disparages the film based on an accusation of incoherence, you would actually name The Pineapple Express and the The Fall as the #4 and #8 best films of the year, respectively.
The level of incoherence in TDK is nothing compared to what's exhibited in those two films.
JE: You're absolutely right. And one of them takes place in the imagination of some stoners and the other in the head of a little girl who is not a native speaker of English listening to a man on morphine make up a story in order to persuade her to get him more morphine. They're both funny about it, too.
To respond to Dave Hunter:
"How does the movie justify his worldview?
Durden: By depicting American life as repetitive and monotonous in a way that the viewer can, hopefully, recognize and identify with.
Joker: It doesn't. Often the characters do snap like the Joker seems to expect that they will. Often they don't. The result is pretty arbitrary. But the movie expects you to perceive a non-existent depth to the Joker's understanding of things because he's such a good bank robber/eyeball-gouger."
Actually, Fight Club both does and does not justify Tyler's world-view. It portrays consumerism as repetitive and monotonous and then ends up treating Tyler's organization in the same way.
The Joker's world-view is similarly vindicated and defeated. Some individuals resort to violence (people trying to kill Reese, people voting to blow up the other boat), others refuse to crack under the pressure (Batman taking on Dent's crimes in order to save Gotham).
If the movie expects you to believe Joker's opinions have depth (questionable, given his propensity for lies and half-truths), the reasons for doing so are arguably his insight into human nature, his ability to manipulate people around him. That he is ultimately unsuccessful in proving that EVERYBODY is bad is part of the movie's point.
"A lot of commenters here seem to feel that the lack of definition to the Joker's character is a strength, rather than a weakness. Why?"
On a simple level? The Joker is scarier than Tyler Durden because you know what Tyler wants. You can't get a handle on the Joker. He's not all dissimilar from Anton Chigurgh, who also exists as a mysterious bad-ass with an odd sense of humor and a hair-trigger. Joker is funny yet unnerving, charismatic yet totally insane, and totally invincible. You just can't ruin his day. He'll just keep laughing in your face, whether you're beating him, bribing him, pleading with him, or throwing him off a building. We fear what we don't understand, and by preventing us from understanding the Joker (he's unpredictable, he has no past, he doesn't seem to have limits), the movie makes him terrifying.
On a more complicated level, the Joker resembles the mythological trickster figure, like Loki. His character is a little like a game of Calvinball (where the only rule is that you can never use the same rule twice). He is sometimes dangerous, sometimes truthful, sometimes manipulative, sometimes joyous, sometimes cynical... you never know which mood is going to pop out of the box at any given moment, except that whatever it will be will end up harmful to somebody and mordantly funny to the audience. The only constant is that he's inconstant, hence his "lack of definition" in your terms. I call that a strength because it makes the character original, scary, and mesmerizing. Does that answer your question?
Stephen--
This is Jim's blog so I'll make this my final comment, no matter what you reply. But let me ask you this. How would you describe THE DARK KNIGHT? What genre is it? It's not "superhero" since Batman doesn't have superpowers. Isn't it "comic book HERO"? Or are you saying we should create a new genre, "comic book vigilante"?
Let me quickly define "hero" for you from my dictionary:
1. A person, typically a man (!), *who is admired or idealized for courage, outstanding achievements or noble qualities.*
2. The chief male (!) character in a book, play, or movie, *who is typically associated with good qualities, and with whom the reader is expected to sympathize.*
Emphasis mine...
If I remember my earliest Batman comics from Bob Kane's heyday, he is truly a hero although he works outside the law. TDK seems to be happy to cast him as nothing more than a vigilante, and therefore, he loses my admiration and sympathy in the process. Spider-Man, Superman, Iron Man, and West's and Burton's Batmen, whatever their flaws, are all heroes. TDK is not.
"To live outside the law, you must be honest."--Bob Dylan
"Except for the first round of reviews of the film, all the conversation seems to be a counter to the opposing view. I personally was a bit disappointed in the coverage of such writers as David Bordwell or Mr. Emerson or Ted Pigeon, which, published after the film was released, focused on debunking the praise it got, and never really analyzed what is there."
I think these very entertaining analysis quizzes are Jim's attempt at an actual analysis of the film. I agree with Jim on his thoughts that he wished the film lingered on some things more than it did. I liked the movie (so far it is the best Batman film we've got) but it has a lot of warts. I've wanted a David Fincher Batman for a long time, just look at Zodiac and Seven, stylistically perfect for Batman.
Re: Batman as Cheney. It's also worth noting that Batman's decision to beat up the Joker did no good. It was purely an act of anger and desperation on Batman's part, and all that happened was that Batman got information out of the Joker that he was already going to give him. The person who comes off worse, to me, is Gordon (and for that matter the entire police force) for allowing Batman to pummel the Joker. But I don't think Gotham
I do think that Harvey or somebody should have been a voice for the due process of law in the film; the closest we get (before Lucius realizes that Bruce has crossed his line) is Rachel. But I think part of the point of the film is how damaging Batman is to the fabric of Gotham--the multiple Batman vigilantes with guns, the Joker taking advantage of the instability caused by Batman trying to right the city. Batman does clean up the town, but his example is a poor one for anyone else to follow; he's a "hero," in a way, but he shouldn't be. The film doesn't actually offer any better solution--the closest it comes is in its final moments, with its Man Who Shot Liberty Valance-style deification of "good guy" Dent at the expense of the truth, and its demonization of Batman. I'm not sure how consistent this conclusion is with the rest of the film. It's been a while.
As far as Jim's quiz: I think other posters have covered it. The movie is by no means clear in its presentation of the Joker. Except that he is a terrorist, wants to be frightening, wants everyone to sink to his level of nihilism, and in wants to turn the town against Batman.
I might write more in a day or two. I know that my ideas here are incomplete. And yet I post anyway.
I didn't find anything difficult to understand or inconsistent in the Joker's behaviour. Nolan alwyas spends some time explaining what Joker's motives are.
In answer to your first questions, all 6 statements are true, even 'b', the most questionable one. Whether or not Joker really thinks getting rid of Batman will produce "order", there's no question Batman's presence has created chaos. the movie explicitly says so:
Alfred: You crossed the line first, sir. You squeezed them, you hammered them to the point of desperation. And in their desperation they turned to a man they didn't fully understand.
What evidence does the movie provide? Well, let's see. Joker carries out his proposed threats. He kills people, and when Harvey turns himself in claiming to be Batman the mob pays Joker off.
At this point, Joker's goals change. And quite unlike what you're insinuating Jim, the movie explains it by providing a 'turning point' scene. Joker burns his payoff and says:
All you care about is money. This town deserves a better class of criminal...and I'm gonna give it to them. Tell your men they work for me now. This is my city. [...] Why don't we cut you up into little pieces...and feed you to your pooches? And then we'll see how loyal a hungry dog really is. It's not about money...it's about sending a message. Everything burns.
Now we know Joker isn't working for the mob anymore. His motives are spelled out by Bruce at the end of their encounter:
What were you hoping to prove? That, deep down, everyone's as ugly as you?
Yes, and that's another way of saying "Everything burns". You didn't come right out and say it, but I guess you thought the movie didn't play fair with the audience regarding the Joker's motives and comments. I never got that impression. I can only think of 3 lies he tells. Two are the fake origins -- which are great. William Goldman pointed out in one of his books how origin stories can emasculate and demystify characters. The other lie is when he reveals Harvey and Rachel's locations to Bruce. He wants Bruce to save Harvey, so that Harvey can be destroyed. Joker's not lying outright to Harvey in the hospital, but he's obviously laying on the manipulation a little thick.
Josh: As far as Tyler vs. the Joker, remember that Durden is the bad guy. The fact that he ends up running his organization in the same way, but in a more extreme fashion, as the society he's supposedly railing against, is part of the point. Tyler--absolute destruction, rather than absolute consumption--is not the answer. It takes basically destroying the world for the narrator to get to the point where he understands that. I just want to point that out.
I think Brandon expressed the point I was trying to make about the Joker as a response to Batman--he fills a newly-created void. My comment is much less coherent than I had hoped (and I even stopped in the middle of a sentence! SORRY!).
And to "Everything burns" and "You wanted to prove that everyone is as ugly as you", I would add "Some people just want to see the world burn" and his making the low-level mob guys compete against each other for his next spot, both his (invented) origin stories, what he does to Dent, what he tries to do to the people on the boat. They're all about showing that order and morality, and above all the stability of any system, are just illusions. Any bank can be robbed; any code can be broken; any man can be corrupted; anything can burn. I don't think that the Joker is quite as inconsistent as it seems.
Which is not to say that I am defending the movie 100%--far from it. It's actually possible Nolan should have handed the reins over to someone who had some action background to introduce some senes of visual coherence. And a lot of it is very rushed. But, problematic though it is, I think it does have a lot to offer. I like these posts, Jim, because it is helping to shine some light on both what the film does well and what it does badly (or not at all).
Jim, have you read much Greek tragedy? If not, I'd recommend reading (or re-reading) Euripides' The Bacchae, which is arguably his best work, and fails all of the tests you've outlined above in terms of consistency of anarchic character.
In essence the play's polemic is between the world of logic and rationality (symbolized by King Pentheus) and the world of chaos and irrationality (symbolized by Dionysus). Does having Dionysus lay a well-planned trap for Pentheus mean that he's suddenly not so chaotic? I'm not so sure I agree with that, and you seem to be applying a weirdly reductive standard to these notions of chaos.
As I've mentioned in previous posts, the chaotic element in the film isn't "anything goes": it's a specific game that severs action from consequence. Without the ability to gauge moral responses (because a moral action can lead to a tragic ending, and vice-versa), we dissolve these notions of good and evil. An amoral world has no need for a superhero, given that nothing he does changes any kind of balance. From my viewing, all the Joker's games seemed to point in that direction, regardless of how he gets there. It's moral chaos rather than, as I said, "anything goes."
By the way, just to put my own opinions out there: I think the first third of the movie is particularly sloppy and incoherent, and I agree entirely with many of the aesthetic criticisms. Nolan is not an action director, and he has a lot of maturing to do to make a sequence coherent. Your particular line of criticism in this post seems weird to me, though. Your earlier post on the shot-by-shot escape sequence was stronger.
JE: Brad, thank you for presenting a smart, coherent argument. I haven't yet addressed why I asked these particular questions, but (in short) it was to focus on the process the audience goes through when they watch the movie (and the Joker in particular), what they choose to believe and what they choose not to believe. That's simply because to say that you can't always believe the Joker is to say nothing at all. It is, indeed, possible for him to tell the truth in some respects and lie in others, at the same time.
But to get to the core issues you raise: 1) Greek drama was never presented as "realism" in the photorealistic way "The Dark Knight" is. Of course, film and stage are very different experiences. 2) I could be really, REALLY wrong here, but I thought the point of Batman was that he is a superhero without supernatural powers. My question is: Why is the Joker (and company) capable of supernatural foresight and planning (Gordon: "The Joker wanted to be caught!") when Batman is not. Do you think the movie suggests that the Joker is a (demi-?) god, while Batman is a mere mortal? I'm not being facetious. That's an argument that some have made, but I don't think the movie follows through on it (especially since it leaves the Joker dangling...).
Jim--
1)I don't see why a realistic presentation shouldn't be paired to a slightly stylized story. The realistic elements add a sense of gravity to the fantastical elements. Is Persepolis somehow contradicting itself by putting a realistic (in fact true!) story to extremely stylized images? What about, speaking of comic books, the great Maus, which tells a true Holocaust survival story using cartoon mice as stand-ins for Jews? Or, slightly more to the point, did Danny Boyle do serious damage to 28 Days Later by shooting it in gritty video evoking home movies and documentaries, despite the surreality of the story? I don't buy it.
2)Well, first, I don't think the Joker has supernatural powers. Joker's quasi-mystical cunning doesn't seem so much more remarkable to me than Bruce Wayne's ability to get beaten up every night without suffering severe physical disability over time. These may be superpowers relative to, well, reality, but the Dark Knight is a hyper-realistic interpretation of a slightly stylized reality.
Wait, Jim. Wait.
You think that "Pineapple Express" was all in their heads?
You seem to have an unhealthy interest in viewing movies as complete and utter figments of the protagonist's imagination.
Witness your interpretations of "The Descent," "Donnie Darko," "Pineapple Express," your passion for "Fight Club," and your comment earlier about Batman's villain as an aspect of his psyche.
THIS is the real discussion we need to be having.
JE: Yes, I've written about all those movies as taking place inside an unreliable narrator's head(s). (Well, not "The Dark Knight," but I think it would have been an approach more rewarding, considering the movie's vision of the Joker character.) Every movie creates its own "head space" -- some more specifically subjective than others. To me, a movie is essentially a way of looking at some part of the world through someone else's eyes. Christopher Nolan accomplished that with "Memento," I think. But hasn't since -- although I thought Cillian Murphy's Scarecrow in "Batman Begins" was a far more creepy and compelling villain than "The Dark Knight"'s vision of the Joker, no slight to Heath Ledger intended. I'd LOVE to continue those discussions!
First, I want to say (for the umpteenth time) that anything, no matter how ostensibly implausible, can be made believable by specific script and directorial decisions. When we see a movie, we're looking at the results of those decisions.
My intention with this line of questioning (and it was obviously not 100% successful, but I couldn't have hoped it would be) was to put you back into the experience of watching the film for the first time, when you were (if you were paying any attention to the movie at all) forced to ask these questions for yourself. How much of what the Joker says should you believe? I've heard so many people make cryptically vague comments like "You can't always believe everything the Joker says..." as if that were some kind of profound statement about the movie or the character. So, to counter the vagueness, I thought it would be a good idea to take a look at several consecutive statements and see exactly what he says, and ask what you/we/I think he might mean or what he might want, if anything.
In fact, the Joker sometimes tells the truth (perhaps coincidentally, perhaps as a prediction, perhaps only in retrospect), he sometimes lies, and he sometimes does both at the same time. When he signs off with, "I'm a man of my word," he's... only half-Joking.
If we want to believe Gordon, that the whole truck chase was just a set-up so that the Joker could get captured and sent to the M.C.U. so that he could get close to Lau (who is later incinerated without even the dignity of a medium shot, much less a close-up), then... I'm long past caring. But in the moment that the M.C.U. cop tossed him a cell phone I just felt insulted. As a moviegoer, I can enjoy escapist fantasy, and despite its photorealistic style and lack of songcraft "The Dark Knight" is as "realistic" as "Sweeney Todd," but I don't particularly enjoy being treated as if I were brain-dead. I do not believe that, as shown in this movie, a cop who says he's allowed himself to be captured by the Joker and urges other cops to shoot, would be ignored and that, instead, another cop would toss the Joker a cell phone when everybody knew that there were at least two bombs (in fact, three) that might have been triggered by that phone call. I can only hope that, in some fictional world, all those cops got blown to hell for their idiocy.
If, as someone else has suggested, however, we had any indication that "The Dark Knight" is Bruce Wayne's own guilt-plagued nightmare about his own human ineffectuality in the face of overwhelming forces... well, that's a movie I'd love to see.
OK, so here are my "answers," the things that occurred to me as I watched the film:
a) LOOK AT ME! This is how crazy the Batman's made Gotham!
False. No, this is how crazy you are. I don't know if the Joker really believes this, or if he's just using it as a scare tactic, but either way it probably doesn't matter.
b) You want order in Gotham? Batman has to go.
Wha? How does that follow? This Joker guy makes no sense. Nobody will believe a word he says.
c) So, Batman must take off his mask and turn himself in.
See response to "b," above. Is the Joker really that obsessed with knowing who Batman is? Why? Does he really see Batman as that much of a threat? Does he care about his own success that much? Is it true he wants to get Batman off the streets but not (as he later says) to kill him? Why mention Batman at all?
d) Every day he doesn't... people will die.
Probably true. And probably true if he does, too.
e) Starting tonight.
Proves to be true.
f) I'm a man of my word!
True in the sense that he has plans to kill some people that night. Maybe not so true in the sense that he isn't always strictly honest (like, say, about the locations where Rachel and Harvey are being held).
My conclusion: The Joker may be crazy (or, as has been suggested, "super-sane," though I'm not sure what that means). He may even be arbitrary and motiveless (to the extent that all he really wants is to watch the world burn). But, as you're watching the movie, you have to ask yourself what the Joker means when he says things -- even if you decide he means nothing at all.
Jim--
You really find it that hard to believe that at least one of those scared cops, faced with an insane mass-murderer in clown makeup, would thoughtlessly throw him a phone to try and save a friend's life? Sorry, I just don't see that as beyond belief. Some cop, perhaps a less-experienced one, really doesn't want to see anyone die, and so convinces him or herself that giving the joker what he wants will avoid him having to watch Stephens die, and, hell, the Joker really should get his phonecall anyway, it's the law, so why not just do it? Etc. etc. I watched it and went "oh, no...", but I didn't think "no human being could possibly be that stupid." But maybe my opinion of human beings is too low.
Jim, you've said this before:
"I do not believe that, as shown in this movie, a cop who says he's allowed himself to be captured by the Joker and urges other cops to shoot, would be ignored and that, instead, another cop would toss the Joker a cell phone when everybody knew that there were at least two bombs (in fact, three) that might have been triggered by that phone call."
I don't think those cops KNEW there were bombs. In fact, if I'm right, the Joker never says Harvey and Rachel are wired to blow. He simply says where they're being held, and that one of them will die. Even if he had said that there were bombs, Gordon and Batman tear out of the MCU so fast I don't think they stopped to brief the cops left behind on the situation.
Since that's the first time Joker actually uses bombs, I think it's perfectly logical for the cops who give him a phone to have no clue that Joker might be triggering a bomb. We think it's dumb because we have much more information than he does. But that's tension, not illogic.
JE: Maybe (perhaps 7/7/07 didn't happen in his world), but I would have believed the senior cop, the one who (inexplicably) had been left in the cell with the notorious madman, over the Joker at that moment.
1) All of them.
2) All of them.
3) All of them.
4) All of them.
5) All of them.
When you attempt to dissect insanity with rationality, you'll end up with non-sequiturs.
I'm not going to answer the questions because they are too reminiscent of the type of stuff you do in first year film studies, but the reponses to TDK continue to somewhat confuse me; it's a blockbuster entertainment. It does not have ideas above its station; it just believes that it will entertain better if played as if this were possible. Of course not one minute of The Dark Knight is particularly plausible, or even possible; if it does take a realist approach (debateable) it certainly doesn't take a REALISTIC approach. Your reponse to the movie seems to be 'ok, you want me to take it seriously so why do these things not seem to make realistic sense.' Can't you just concede that you didn't find it fun? It's not the second most successful movie of all time because of its oblique references to terrorism or because of the elipses in the character of the Joker. It entertained more people than any movie in recent memory, and on the level that I enjoy it at I have yet to notice a proper loophole in the story. It was never made, or intended to be, a deep character piece or an allegory on modern fears.
The Joker does change throughout the movie, depending on who he is dealing with; he takes on slightly different personas to achieve his goal. You could ask, what does a nihilist want with a goal anyway? Such questions don't get you too far; what was Darth Vader planning on doing when he wiped out the Rebel Alliance? (I know there is going to be an answer to that question, but I don't really care). You say: '"It's a comic-book movie," some people say. "It's not supposed to make any sense!" And yet what genre is more obsessive about the rules of its fictional universe[s] than comics?'
TDK doesn't break any of its own rules. It's a big bold entertainment that avoids the fantasy of the Burton Batmans and instead gives us a world that we can recognise and a modern city that could represent many. To then demand total realism out of it seems genuinely bizarre to me. Why are people so fascinated with what the Joker is up to when he's not on the screen? Would Jaws have benefitted with a psychoanalytical scene explaining the motivations of the shark?
The Joker is many things but not a man of his word. But one thing is clear in the movie is that everything the Joker does is having to do with Batman. He says so himself.
a) He isn't talking to the city of Gotham but to Batman. As I have stated in an response to the first shot, I see the Joker as a product of Batmans Gotham, an reaction to Batman. He exist because Batman does. Alfrd says this to Batman: "You crossed the line first" and now the Joker says the same thing By becoming this character he gets stronger responses from the city.
b) Well it's true. Before Batman there was only normal criminals (The Scarecrow was in "...Begins" was a product of someones who's ideals and goal were an extreme version of Batman's)
c) Well he tries to kill a people every day .
d) That's a lie, but that doesn't mean that he does not mean the statements he makes in this tape.
I am looking forward to seeing more evidence on why you think the movie is bad, because you I respect your abilities at analyzing films, but i think that you a wrong about these two examples.
I can understand that you may object to the style of this film and I for one are sick and tired that every other film being shot and edited like the Bourne-films, but this film at least give the audience some spacial information in the action sequences something the Bourne films don't.
And again I see this as a film about the consequences of the of Batman. He dare to be with out borders and the city reacts by adapting, by creating a criminal that is his mirror image in reverse. He is the flip side on the coin In the end the Batman has to accept the role as villain to defeat the crimes by the Joker because if he exist as a hero the city will produce worse and worse criminals.
Do you think the movie suggests that the Joker is a (demi-?) god, while Batman is a mere mortal? I'm not being facetious. That's an argument that some have made, but I don't think the movie follows through on it (especially since it leaves the Joker dangling...).
Co-writer Jonathan Nolan suggests as much in an interview that was podcast by Creative Screenwriting Magazine: http://media.libsyn.com/media/creativescreenwritingmag/TheDarkKnightQandA.mp3
If, as someone else has suggested, however, we had any indication that "The Dark Knight" is Bruce Wayne's own guilt-plagued nightmare about his own human ineffectuality in the face of overwhelming forces... well, that's a movie I'd love to see.
I apologize for not having read everything that you've written on TDK to date, so I'm not entirely sure what your angle of inquiry here is, but why can't The Dark Knight be this, despite the lack of cinematic air quotes to specifically imply it? You credit the movie for its emphasis on photorealism, and the nub of a lot of your gripes seem to be that it doesn't live up to its realistic intentions. But I think you may be overascribing the filmmakers' own interest in realism.
More even than Memento, I think The Prestige is the ultimate Nolan film. (Note that all three of these give some story credit to Jonathan as well.) In his review, Roger was bothered by The Prestige taking a "supernatural" route, and I think he's committing a similar oversight.
(Prestige spoilers for this whole paragraph:) The narrative oomph of The Prestige is that the Jackman character uses a technological breakthrough to beat the ingenuity and fanatical dedication of the Bale twins. Bale cares so much about being a supreme illusionist that he has concealed his brother's life from the world for decades more or less exclusively for the sake of doing his Transported Man trick. (That the Bale twin undergoes the same amputation as Bale prime was not something featured in the Christopher Priest novel.) So we're given this as a sign of his maniacal devotion. But The Prestige is about Jackman and Bale out-bedeviling one another, so Jackman's response is to have Tesla invent a duplication machine.
(Prestige spoilers for this paragraph too:) Setting aside for just a moment the fact that such a thing cannot exist in the known physical universe, imagine what Jackman and/or Tesla (sorry to mix actor and character names) could do with such a device! Untold riches, either gained through the most perfect counterfeiting or through the licensing of the most wonderful technology ever -- one that can even duplicate human life! And what does Jackman do with it? He is content simply to outdo and mystify Bale. All those wonderful possibilities, but no greater purpose than a combination of professional showmanship and personal spite.
(One more paragraph of Prestige spoilers:) So that's the narrative effect that the Nolans want to achieve. But from a practical perspective, they're telling the story of 19th century stage magicians to a 21st century movie audience. They could have had Tesla invent any actual technology, from telephony to television to lasers to microwave ovens, but would we the audience be impressed if he did? No. We wouldn't be impressed, and in fact we would have seen the whole last two-thirds of the movie coming once we knew that Jackman was seeking a technological solution for Bale's mystifying illusion of The Chicken Breast That Cooks In Only a Minute. For this reason, I don't think that The Prestige is supernatural or science fiction simply because it includes an impossible technology -- it simply includes the only technology that it could include for the narrative to have the intended effect on a modern audience. By using a fictional technology it gets past our intellectual defenses and tells the story that it wants to tell ... which is not to say that it does not get tripped up as it tries to get past our intellectual defenses, pace many reviews including Roger's.
So the idea that we have to call the Joker fully human, or The Dark Knight fully realistic, is its own shell game. You can use the movie's flaws to shell fanboys who praise it for its realism -- I balked when I saw the bus escape in IMAX too, and there's no patent harm in asking whether a cop would have given The Joker a cell phone. But I don't see why I shouldn't give any filmmaker the same latitude I give David Lynch to ... do something in front of my eyes that makes me glad I went to the movies that day, and disentangle them from, specifically, the tropes of realism.
Now, that is not to say that Chris Nolan is a terrific visual director, because I don't think that he is, or even that The Dark Knight is awesome, because I don't think that it is. And like you I believe in close readings as the film critic's primary tool. But the idea that the Joker might be, to some degree, a trickster god, or that the whole movie might be Bruce Wayne's nightmare -- those are readings of the movie that I think are fully supportable despite the lack of any ratiocination that explicitly suggests them, and I don't think it's the responsibility of the filmmakers to specifically allow or disallow them so that we can tidily parcel the whole experience of watching the movie into the "realistic" bin.
Uh... who cares? Sorry, but isn't it a little ridiculous for you to be spending so much of your time defending your position? I don't know about the rest of the world, but I'm over it by now. You didn't like the Dark Knight. Ok. I did. You're entitled to your opinion, but you also have a job. Why don't you write about something else? You're not going to change anyone's mind, and even if you could, why would you want to take the joy out of a movie that so many people love? You've been a critic for quite a while now, and you've built up an impressive reputation. Aren't you afraid of becoming "The Guy Who Didn't Like the Dark Knight?"
JE: Well, it's too late for that. That's the most confounding thing about this movie: No matter what you observe in it, all people take away is "like" or "don't like." Yes, I've spent 2 days playing around with ways to approach discussion of this movie -- and it's been worth it, for me, just to hear from the minority who understand enough about movies to be willing to discuss this one, even if they don't share my specific "opinions." But you're right: Time to move along...
Let's see: We know that the loud explosions and lingering balls of fire that occur in space in any of these Science Fiction movies is absolutely impossible; so Star Wars and the like must be crap according to your logic.
The fight sequences in Raging Bull and Rocky are extremely thrilling, but no human being could take the punishment that Rocky did or that Jake Lamotta endured at the hands of Ray Robinson-I've seen the real fight, the film version is silly as Hell in comparison...exciting though.
I could go on...and will, if you would like, but I think you get my point.
Everyone has an opinion, and all are just as insipid and meaningless as the next- and I would leave it at that, but... the fact that you thought a generic, underwritten, bland villian like "The Scarecrow" was creepier than the joker, reveals one of two things...you're a contrarian, trying to work people up into a frenzy for your little blog-or you simply have very little knowledge about character development or good writing in general. I'm pretty sure I know which one it is, but that's just my opinion.
A. 2
In accordance with the movie we never hear a story about Batman makng the Joker into who he is. If you go by the first Tim Burton movie ("Charles Napier", as I recall) "makes" Batman and Batman "makes" the Joker by throwing Charles Napier in a vat of acidic chemicals, but this is never presented in any of the Joker's stories of his origin, so the statement must be false based on what we have seen.
B. 3
Neither True of False because there is a level of order with Batman and a level of order without Batman. Without Batman (if you go by "Batman Begins") there is not much order, but since their are policemen with or without Batman there is bound to be some order (at least James Gordon is not corrupt!). With Batman you could argue there was more order. You have no reason to believe the Joker would not have been a criminal if there was no Batman (See above), so clearly there would only be less order (even if Batman was not around).
C. 3
Neither True or False because of the reasons stated above (in B). Batman unmasked doesn't stop a criminal from committing crimes. It only makes life more difficult for Bruce Wayne.
D. 3
People die every day. The statement itself asserts nothing. If instead the Joker stated he would kill someone everyday until Batman is unmasked, then the answer would probably be 5.
E. 2
Since the answer to D is neither true or false, E can not be true because people die all the time. There is no point to "Starting tonight". If you consider the Joker means he will kill someone, then the answer to this statement is also probably 5.
F. 2
I can only think of one time where the Joker does not lie. When he proposes to Batman to either save Harvey Dent or Rachel Dawes, he states (if I recollect correctly) you can only save one of them. This is true only because presumably Batman only has time to save one. Then again, there is no point to the Joker taking Rachel (except for the fact that she is fiesty) because the only the audience, and not the Joker (we never see the Joker on screen telling us why he would take Rachel), knows that Rachel is important to Bruce Wayne (and therefore to Batman).
JE: Hmmm, now you've got me thinking. It's true that Batman himself can either save Dent or Rachel -- but the Joker does give him the correct addresses, so Gordon's team (if we accept the logic of the parallel montage) arrives at their destination at almost exactly the time as Batman does, so I wonder if it was possible that both could have been saved. We see Batman arriving first, then Gordon; but we see Rachel's bomb detonating first, followed several seconds later by Dent's. (I think split screen would have been more dramatically/visually/thematically effective here -- Two-Face, get it? -- but that's just me second-guessing the director again.)
When Batman is racing toward the Joker on the cycle, do you think the Joker means it when he says, "C'mon, I want you to do it! Hit me!" Does he think Batman will avoid killing him? Does he care?
Jim--
Regarding whether the Joker does want Batman to kill him, I think the answer is yes. He wants Batman to break his one rule--his rule against killing. This is why he seems so disappointed when Batman saves him at the end--he laughs manically as he falls, in part because he believes he's won and made Batman as rule-less and chaotic as him. And then you can hear aggravation in his voice when he says "you really are incorruptible, aren't you? You couldn't do it," etc.
JE: Good point -- and thanks for your observations about the bus shot, too!
The Joker is trying to get Batman because he was hired by Maroni to get Batman. The videotape is his chosen method of doing so.
Maroni and the Chechen have a conversation about this when they learn of Lau's capture, shortly before they are arrested by Gordon. Then there is the conversation between Harvey Dent and the mayor that is interrupted by the corpse-on-a-rope with the videotape stuck to it.
The Joker knows Batman cares about Rachel because he DIVED OUT OF A WINDOW after her.
This is nuts. JE criticizes "fanboy speculation." I'd agree, except that his analysis performs exactly the same operations of which he accuses the fanboys, just in reverse, to criticize TDK instead of praising it.
does anyone else find Joker burning the money to be sort a noble thing. The Joker's motives are not noble, but if you judge the act of money burning separate from intention i think there is something symbolic about leaving a capitalistic system where people are the slaves in the pursuit of paper.