The Joker

[Miss Anthrope]

I hadn't really ever planned to start a topic about this, but I have wanted to discuss it, and unfortunately every thread I've seen so far on the web is rife with comments akin to  "Yeh man I tottly agree wit da Joker, heez the man, man!" and other such nonsensical, poorly written villain-worship that makes me come away just plain...disturbed. I'm referring to Heath Ledger's Joker, one of the most interesting and thought-provoking movie villains I've ever encountered. It's really scary how many idiots out there can't comprehend some of the philosophically valid elements without condoning his actions (of course, I'm sure they'd feel much differently if a psychotic clown had one of THEIR loved ones trapped on a bomb-rigged boat). Frightening little minds.

One thing I found interesting about the character is that he was above (and I don't use that in a complimentary way) human judgement. In other words, I couldn't judge him the way I would a typical bad-guy, like the mobsters he ripped off. I feel a little anger rise in me when I see an onscreen mobster brutally
killing someone over some money, but I couldn't really get angry at the Joker, any more than I could be angry at a wild animal (by his own admission he was like a "dog chasing a car". An animal. Or as one movie reviewer referred to him, more of a destructive force than a human (like a tsunami). On another level, I guess it was also because he was so unbiased. It's similar to the way it's more socially acceptable to be a misanthrope than a racist or a misogynist. This led me to an odd philosophical conclusion (insofar as you can actually do that; its a bit of an oxymoron):

If a person killed a group of people, be it a building, a city, a country, whatever, it would be more evil (I know "good" and "evil" are just unquantifiable abstracts, forgive my "layman's philosophy" terminology) than if a person destroyed the entire human race. If no one is around to suffer from loss of loved ones or judge the action, then it can't be labeled anything. Not a brilliant philosophical point by any means, its really just a variation of "If a tree falls...", but I'd be interested to read others' input on this, and also see what other intelligent people think of the Joker's philosophy(s), and even philosophical questions raised by the movie itself. It's too hard to get any relevant viewpoints in the dredges of the internet's sewers.

[curiosityandthecat]

To tell the truth, I love analyzing evil characters. I find them fascinating. That is, I enjoy analyzing fictional evil characters, as the real ones are just never as interesting (save Albert Fish... that guy was... phew). After all, the real ones are still human; the fictional ones can be as over-the-top as the creator would like.

The Joker did intrigue me greatly. I think it was precisely as you mentioned, that chaotic nature of equal-access mayhem: everyone is as useless as everyone else and no one is special. Ironically, I believe the Joker truly felt the Batman was special in some way, to the point that one could almost say he loved him. Anyway, motivation is a key aspect of evil. If you look at the scale of evil, the Joker is either a 15 if you consider him "cold blooded" or, strangely, a 22 if you consider his acts torture and those acts as the primary motivator. I saw someone comparing him to the killer in Se7en in that they both had "greater" schemes in mind (in Se7en, creating "art"; in Dark Knight, creating a state of pure anarchy). I don't buy it, though.

It's the killers who actually think they are doing a good thing that really interest me. The Joker is definitely one of them. Not that he thinks he's making a better world by doing what he does; I don't think he believes that. What he believes is that he's making the world more real, opening peoples' eyes to the reality of the human condition, especially in modern society. Likewise, Necron from Final Fantasy IX wanted to destroy the world to end suffering. It makes sense in a Utilitarian sort of way.

[karadan]

To tell the truth, I love analyzing evil characters. I find them fascinating. That is, I enjoy analyzing fictional evil characters, as the real ones are just never as interesting (save Albert Fish... that guy was... phew). After all, the real ones are still human; the fictional ones can be as over-the-top as the creator would like.  

"In January 1917, Fish's wife left him for John Straube, a handyman who boarded with the Fish family.[6] Following this rejection, Fish began to hear voices; for example, he once wrapped himself up in a carpet, explaining that he was following the instructions of John the Apostle.[5] It was around this time that Fish began deliberately harming himself. He would self-embed needles into his groin, which he normally would remove afterwards, but soon he began to insert them so deep that they were impossible to take out.[4] Later x-rays revealed that Fish had at least 29 needles lodged in his pelvic region.[4] He also hit himself repeatedly with a nail-studded paddle.

At the age of 55, Fish began to experience delusions and hallucinations that God commanded him to torment and castrate little boys.[4] Doctors said he suffered from a religious psychosis."

Ripped straight from Wikipedia... But, fucking hell!! What a nutter!

[Kyuuketsuki]

TBH I don't really get why Ledger's Joker is supposedly so good ... I vastly preferred the Nicholson variant (but then I preferred the Burton/Keaton Batman to the Nolan/Bale one).

Kyu

[SSY]

I think the whole death thing added a LOT of cache to the joker. Sure he was good, great even, but I think some people took more notice because they saw it as the end of the line somewhat.

[Wraitchel]

So, your question is basically, " Is it tragic if nobody is left to grieve?" Of course, that is looking at it from the effect side, rather than the intent side, which is a whole different concern.

To my surprise, I have to say that I do not think it is as evil to destroy every living being as it is to sever relationships by killing an individual. I guess I am reflecting my societal bias toward individual rights and concerns. Perhaps if I were Japanese, I would say it was better to kill the individual than to destroy the whole.

It is a very intriguing problem. Thanks. I loved Ledger's Joker, too. I hadn't expected to. He was disturbing and thought-provoking.

[SSY]

I'd disagree about it being better to kill the whole

Sure, you kill everyone so fewer people can suffer, but you also totally remove the ability for people to enjoy their existance, I think the denial of pleasure is as bad the infliction of suffering.

If you killed 50% of people only, sure people left may be a bit depressed, for a while, but maybe 10 generations on, they would be over it and could be happy again.

[Will]

imho, the Joker was a deeply afraid character. While on the surface his intentional character inconsistencies could be interpreted as self-entertainment, in truth it's deeper.

Consider him using different stories about how he was scarred. First it was his father, the fiend. Then it was self-mutilation for his wife. He was even going to spin a third tale for the Batman before he ironically got a face full of razors. While I'm sure at first glance this was done as another way for the Joker to screw with the world, the truth is that it's a part of a larger set of behaviors.

Consider his speech to Harvey Dent. He explains, very carefully, that he is the anti-schemer. He hates the schemers and has a mission to turn other people's schemes on themselves. Only that's not really true. The Joker is a schemer of even greater magnitude than the police, local government, or even Batman. The Joker created a situation where he knew that the Batman would have to expose himself. When Harvey Dent did it, the Joker knew that it was a trap, so he sprung the trap. By attacking the police caravan, he sprung the trap and was captured, all along knowing that the fat man with the bomb in his chest was going to be his escape. It was all done intentionally to draw out the Batman. Everything, killing innocent civilians to draw out the Batman, springing the trap, being in police custody when he gave up the locations of Harvey and Rachel (who he knew was going to die); it was all about bringing the Batman to the Joker. It's an incredibly complex scheme.

So why does the Joker suggest to Dent that he's not a schemer, that he's just a dog chasing cars? Combine that with the inconsistency of his scar story, and a picture is starting to form.

When is trying to create a protege in Dent, he also discusses how he's disgusted (in so many words) with the 'plan', or the fact that people are okay with people dying, if they're dying in such a way that fits our social construct. This is an extremely moral view of the world, which is odd considering how amoral the Joker seems on the surface.

Put these things together and the portrait of the Joker really starts to come into focus. The Joker was likely born from tragedy. This was a good man, probably a quiet and introverted man, clearly a very smart man, that had some sort of family that was dear to him. Maybe he had a wife serving in the military, maybe he had a little brother that was a gang-banger; he had someone close to him that he valued greatly. Something happened to that person. The loss of this person broke him in a fundamental way, stirring up his deeply buried parts of him that were anti-social and anarchist. His immense fear of the world combined with these in such a way to inspire another personality. For a time, he was a creature of id, simply doing whatever he pleased, hatching schemes to entertain himself. In truth, he was trying to distract himself from the pain of loss. He could only ever really open up to people that were deeply damaged in some way. Notice that he surrounds himself with people escaped from a mental institution. Why else would he do this except to deal with an unwillingness and inability to relate to normal people, people that accept the 'plan'. Then he finds the Batman. Batman is obviously similarly scared by tragedy, but he's driven by that loss to be a force for the supposedly emotionally stable construct of society. Batman fights for society, thinking society is right. Joker fights against society, believing it to be deeply flawed.

Edit: continuing...

But even though he's fighting what he believes to be a valiant fight for truth and justice for the loss of his loved one, you can see clearly in his behavior an incredible amount of fear. He paints his face. He takes extreme steps to hide his past (totally custom clothing, lying about his scars). The interesting thing is that his fear predates becoming the Joker, it's just manifested in what I have to imagine is a different way. He's still that introvert. He's still afraid of life; afraid of normalcy.

Of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

[Miss Anthrope]

curiosityandthecat - Great assessment, the Joker doesn't think he's making the world a better place (contrary to comments I've read on other forums from people
who place some sort of twisted "good intent" on the Joker's actions), he just thinks he's making "reality" more clear to people. He's an "Agent of Chaos".

And, wow, Albert Fish...just, wow. I couldn't even begin to understand whay HE was thinking.

wraitchel - Same here, I originally thought, "Aw, man, what did they do to the Joker?" then i saw the film and I was just in awe. That'll show me to jump to conclusions. Also see what you're saying about effect and intent, yeah, intent-wise it could definitley be considered "evil".

SSY - I see what you're saying, it just wasn't really my intent to suggest that it's "better" to kill the whole, just looking at the whole thing in an abstract way. Also, and not to challenge what you're saying, just putting forth my opinion, I think people suffer to some degree more thoughout their lives then actually enjoy it if you take into account "lesser suffering" like boredom, confusion, apathy, jealousy, etc, ie. most human emotions. People seem to attain far more negative feelings even from the things they like (like love and even the general pursuit of happiness) than they find things to enjoy in the "bad" things (unless they're masochistic).
Again, I'm not refuting what you're saying, I admit that this is all very subjective.

Willravel - The best analysis of the Joker I've seen anywhere! Extremely balanced and insightful, without any need to proclaim that you are "right" or "wrong". It doesn't surprise me that you label yourself an "Agnostic Atheist". I like your point about the Joker being deeply scared (scarred?), which is contrary to what many people admired about him being fearless (myself included, actually, though to my credit I acknowledged that it was a psychotic fearlessness, thus a reaction to deep-seated pain and fear).

Edit: Just wanted to clarify that I wasn't implying that anybody else here was trying to proclaim themselves as right or wrong, I just meant that often when someone goes to great lengths to explain something as Willravel did it's done to try and prove something. That's all.

[Sophus]

I don't agree about the Joker being a fearful person. More likely he was once afraid in his life and his "over-adjusted." but I guess that's the nice thing about fictional characters. You can make them whoever you want them to be.  

[Will]

Willravel - The best analysis of the Joker I've seen anywhere! Extremely balanced and insightful, without any need to proclaim that you are "right" or "wrong". It doesn't surprise me that you label yourself an "Agnostic Atheist". I like your point about the Joker being deeply scared (scarred?), which is contrary to what many people admired about him being fearless (myself included, actually, though to my credit I acknowledged that it was a psychotic fearlessness, thus a reaction to deep-seated pain and fear).

Fearlessness in life is often an opposing, overcompensating response to inner fear. And it can be a very useful response; it's clearly an evolutionarily developed response to especially dangerous situations. I think the Joker is especially fascinating because his response to fear manifested itself in such a unique way: he became a force of anarchistic vengeance/justice, wrapped up in a cape of unmatched showmanship. It's his flair for the dramatic (to quote Gordon) as a surface for the deeper devotion to exacting his special perspective of justice that I find fascinating. Maybe it was Batman that finally gave him an excuse to go free? I dunno.

I can't express how disappointed I am that Heath Ledger passed away, btw. His portrayal of the character really connected with people, myself included. I sincerely hope that they don't hire someone else to play the Joker in the next film. Let The Dark Knight stand alone as the quintessential Joker performance.

[Miss Anthrope]

I don't agree about the Joker being a fearful person. More likely he was once afraid in his life and his "over-adjusted." but I guess that's the nice thing about fictional characters. You can make them whoever you want them to be.  

In the sense that he acted without fear, you're right, but he did actually betray his innermost feelings subtly. He was not conscious of his own underlying fear. Remember when the boats didn't explode, and for a second, before going back to "Whatever!" mode, he has a look of disappointment. I think he is very afraid to find out that his assessment of humanity is flawed (in all fairness, though, I don't think it really is; in real life I would bet my life that one or both of those boats would have blown up)

[Kyuuketsuki]

I think the whole death thing added a LOT of cache to the joker. Sure he was good, great even, but I think some people took more notice because they saw it as the end of the line somewhat.

Agreed (mostly).

Kyu

[VanReal]

TBH I don't really get why Ledger's Joker is supposedly so good ... I vastly preferred the Nicholson variant (but then I preferred the Burton/Keaton Batman to the Nolan/Bale one).

Kyu

Sounds like you are a fan of the tv Batman, in which case prefering Jack to Heath in that character makes sense.  Heath definitely took that character and redesigned him, you have to kind of ignore the old Joker of tv.  Most of the people that really got into the role really have never seen the original tv series so they don't have to compare anyway...youngins'.  

[Sophus]

As fantastic as Ledger was I think Nolan deserves more credit.

In the sense that he acted without fear, you're right, but he did actually betray his innermost feelings subtly. He was not conscious of his own underlying fear. Remember when the boats didn't explode, and for a second, before going back to "Whatever!" mode, he has a look of disappointment. I think he is very afraid to find out that his assessment of humanity is flawed (in all fairness, though, I don't think it really is; in real life I would bet my life that one or both of those boats would have blown up)

Fear of being wrong. That I can see for someone as intellectual as him. I agree about the boats too. Too bad it's too grotesque to make for a reality show. I would like to know which boat when have gone first.