Happy Atheist Forum

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.

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_Evil#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.

Quote from: "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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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!

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.  

Quote from: "Miss Anthrope"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.

Quote from: "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.  

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)

Quote from: "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.

Agreed (mostly).

Kyu

Quote from: "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

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'.  

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

Quote from: "Miss A"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.

Quote from: "VanReal"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'.  :|

Quote from: "VanReal"[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'.  :)

Kyu

You must be very young to think the Joker introduced any new philosophical ideas to the world or to cinema.

Quote from: "Loffler"You must be very young to think the Joker introduced any new philosophical ideas to the world or to cinema.

Interesting. Your comment made me go back and re-read the OPs post. I could not find any part of the post that stated that the Joker portrayed by Heath Ledger introduced any new philosophical ideas to the world or to cinema. I did, however, notice that the OP used the words "I" and "me" when speaking of the ideas that they thought of. In fact, this person clearly states that it led them to an odd philosophical conclusion with this quote:

Quote from: "Miss Anthrope"This led me to an odd philosophical conclusion

Seemed like a put down. Why would this person's age have anything to do with an idea that they got watching a movie which they wished to discuss with other members of this forum? Should they not wish to discuss this online, or perhaps find a message board for whatever past movie has introduced this exact philosophical conclusion? I guess I'm just confused as to what, if any, point you were trying to make with your post.

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"

Quote from: "Loffler"You must be very young to think the Joker introduced any new philosophical ideas to the world or to cinema.

Interesting. Your comment made me go back and re-read the OPs post. I could not find any part of the post that stated that the Joker portrayed by Heath Ledger introduced any new philosophical ideas to the world or to cinema. I did, however, notice that the OP used the words "I" and "me" when speaking of the ideas that they thought of. In fact, this person clearly states that it led them to an odd philosophical conclusion with this quote:

Quote from: "Miss Anthrope"This led me to an odd philosophical conclusion

Seemed like a put down. Why would this person's age have anything to do with an idea that they got watching a movie which they wished to discuss with other members of this forum? Should they not wish to discuss this online, or perhaps find a message board for whatever past movie has introduced this exact philosophical conclusion? I guess I'm just confused as to what, if any, point you were trying to make with your post.

Thanks for be being my advocate, Ihateyoumike, and a good one at that. You saved me quite a bit of typing, and said everything better than I might have, ha ha. I am kind of young, 27, but a fairly well read 27, and I, too, find it kind of odd how my post was interpreted. And what WOULD age have to do with it, I know younger people who have seen and read many cinematic and literary works from many different eras, and know older people who don't pay attention to anything unless its contemporary. Couldn't I just as easily be an ignorant 50 year old?

I will say that I don't believe the Joker (or even the film in general) offered any new philosophical ideas, but as any well made film or literary work should, it did a great job of creatively integrating philosophical themes in a way that seemed new, or rather "fresh". The way "The Matrix" did with the "brain in a vat" argument. To be honest, I don't think there really are any "new" philosophical ideas, per se, just variations and new applications; I even stated that my idea was just a variation of "if a tree falls in the forest..." I'd challenge Loffler to name a character or film from the past twenty years that HAS introduced a new philosophical idea to the world or cinema.

Quote from: "Miss Anthrope"I am kind of young, 27,

I was wrong about your age.

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"

Quote from: "Loffler"You must be very young to think the Joker introduced any new philosophical ideas to the world or to cinema.

Interesting. Your comment made me go back and re-read the OPs post. I could not find any part of the post that stated that the Joker portrayed by Heath Ledger introduced any new philosophical ideas to the world or to cinema. I did, however, notice that the OP used the words "I" and "me" when speaking of the ideas that they thought of. In fact, this person clearly states that it led them to an odd philosophical conclusion with this quote:

Quote from: "Miss Anthrope"This led me to an odd philosophical conclusion

Seemed like a put down. Why would this person's age have anything to do with an idea that they got watching a movie which they wished to discuss with other members of this forum? Should they not wish to discuss this online, or perhaps find a message board for whatever past movie has introduced this exact philosophical conclusion? I guess I'm just confused as to what, if any, point you were trying to make with your post.

All of his observations about the Joker were observations one could make about thousands of other movie villains. Heath Ledger's Joker was unique and fun. But the psychopathic direction they took is actually closer to the original Joker than other recent portrayals have been. He was originally a complete psychopath. But more to the point, there is no shortage of nihilist villains who exist outside of good and evil. This is why I suspected the poster was young. I'm also curious who these other people are he's been speaking with who idolize the Joker. I'm not familiar with that phenomenon. In my world people enjoyed the Dark Knight and that was that.

Quote from: "Loffler"

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"

Quote from: "Loffler"You must be very young to think the Joker introduced any new philosophical ideas to the world or to cinema.

Interesting. Your comment made me go back and re-read the OPs post. I could not find any part of the post that stated that the Joker portrayed by Heath Ledger introduced any new philosophical ideas to the world or to cinema. I did, however, notice that the OP used the words "I" and "me" when speaking of the ideas that they thought of. In fact, this person clearly states that it led them to an odd philosophical conclusion with this quote:

Quote from: "Miss Anthrope"This led me to an odd philosophical conclusion

Seemed like a put down. Why would this person's age have anything to do with an idea that they got watching a movie which they wished to discuss with other members of this forum? Should they not wish to discuss this online, or perhaps find a message board for whatever past movie has introduced this exact philosophical conclusion? I guess I'm just confused as to what, if any, point you were trying to make with your post.

All of his observations about the Joker were observations one could make about thousands of other movie villains. Heath Ledger's Joker was unique and fun. But the psychopathic direction they took is actually closer to the original Joker than other recent portrayals have been. He was originally a complete psychopath. But more to the point, there is no shortage of nihilist villains who exist outside of good and evil. This is why I suspected the poster was young. I'm also curious who these other people are he's been speaking with who idolize the Joker. I'm not familiar with that phenomenon. In my world people enjoyed the Dark Knight and that was that.

Since you've decided to persist in your pointless analysis of my ignorance:

True, there are plenty of other movie villains who I could have made similar observations of, or even "good guys" for that matter. In fact, I tend to be bored if my notions of right and wrong, good and evil aren't being challenged to some degree. Heath Ledger's Joker was particularly entertaining to me, and as I said he was "ONE of the most....", not "the greatest, most philosophically challenging ever...".I wouldn't even know where to begin with all of the great villains to choose from, Apocalypse Now's Colonel Kurtz, Nurse Ratchet, hell, Darth Vader even. Like you said, the Joker was unique, and because of  his "uniqueness" I thought about certain philosophical themes, which I NEVER said were "new", a little differently, and these thoughts led me to the conclusion that part of the reason even the mainstream audience could laugh at and "take sides" with the Joker was because of his utter lack of bias. Hence my little analysis about how it's more "acceptable" to go against all of humanity than just a selected portion. That film started a train of thought, I'm sorry if that train wasn't started by something that you think is more relevant.

I very clearly stated that I encountered Joker worshippers in other forums, here's a link to one I just found at random which should prove that things unknown to you do happen outside of "your world" : http://lounge.moviecodec.com/topics/52404p3.html (http://lounge.moviecodec.com/topics/52404p3.html)

A few quotes from the that thread in case you don't feel like reading it:
"He’s awesome & I can absolutely relate to him & his philosophy."
"Yes, I fully agreed with the joker’s philosophy"

The above thread wasn't the worst I witnessed, but as you can see, YES, there are people out there who come close to seeing him as some kind of hero, and I wanted an on-line place to discuss the character, among other things, with intelligent people. And by the way, I never said people I spoke "with", I referred to forums I VIEWED. Serioulsy, did you actually READ my OPs?! It would be nice of you to do so before making false assumptions and half-hearted challenges.

Your entire rebuttal is nothing more than a deflection from the fact that your made an assumption about my age which was based on something I didn't even say.You didn't "suspect" that I was very young, by the way, you "assumed". If you had suspected, you would have asked my age or said "I'm guessing..." , no, you said "You must be...". I assure you that there are people out there who are older than myself who watch movies like "Dark Knight" and think that it introduced new themes, the same way that while working as a bar-back at age 18 I used to have to listen to people in their 30's+ who thought the themes in "The Matrix" were completely original. Your assumption was narrow-minded.

You still haven't provided an example of a character who introduced "new philosophical ideas to the world or to cinema", and you should since that's apparently your criteria for discussing a character.

Quote from: "Miss Anthrope"I very clearly stated that I encountered Joker worshippers in other forums, here's a link to one I just found at random which should prove that things unknown to you do happen outside of "your world" : http://lounge.moviecodec.com/topics/52404p3.html (http://lounge.moviecodec.com/topics/52404p3.html)

This is exactly what I wanted.

Speaking of the Joker...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/belgium/4326830/Joker-knifeman-kills-children-and-worker-in-Belgian-creche.html

Quote'Joker' knifeman kills children and worker in Belgian daycare

A man resembling the Batman villain The Joker killed two children and a child care worker during a knife attack on a creche in the Belgian town of Dendermonde on Friday.

The 20-year-old assailant had a painted white face, eye shadow and ginger hair, and was wearing a bullet proof vest, witnesses said.

He tricked his way into the Fabeltjesland day care centre at 10am by claiming to have a meeting with one of the members of staff. He then drew a 12in knife and began to slash at children aged between a few months and two years old.

There were 21 infants in the creche and six supervisors. All of the victims were stabbed in the throat or head. Parents gathered in the Dendermonde town hall and, with psychologists in support, identified the victims using photographs.

Nine children escaped unharmed. Three of the creche's child care workers were injured as they tried to fend off the attacker.

Theo Janssens, Dendermonde's deputy mayor, said that the man "just went crazy".

"There was blood everywhere, it was unbelievable, real carnage. He went straight for the babies and attacked them. The smallest ones were in their beds, they were probably asleep."

Marita Blindeman, the adult who was killed, raised the alarm.

"She called the ambulance and died," said Peter Cleymans, 47, a paramedic.

"She was falling down as she was on the telephone. When we got there the phone was covered with blood, it was hanging in the little kitchen."

After the attack, the man, who has yet to be named by police but is from the town, calmly left on his bicycle. Police sealed off all local schools as panic spread throughout the town.

The knifeman was pursued by a police helicopter and arrested in a nearby supermarket still in possession of the weapon used in the attack. Alphonso De Baaker, a retired teacher, said the attacker had a history of mental illness.

Khris Kieckens, the proprietor of the Pertotal bar on the same street as the creche, described how sobbing parents rushed to the scene.

"There was hysteria," he said. "One of my friends saw the attacker cycle off. His eyes were running with black ink, he was thin, tall and ginger haired."

Belgian television said that witnesses described the attacker as looking like The Joker from the Batman films. Parents were taken to a social centre nearby where police showed them digital photographs of infants and toddlers by police, and asked them to identify the children who had identification numbers on their foreheads.

Police and hospital sources said six children, between one and three, were seriously injured, another four suffered minor injuries.

Last night they were all out of danger after surgery.

Paramedics said that when they arrived it was unclear whether the attacker had left. "It is very difficult to do your job when you think that in two minutes he could be on my back and put a knife in my back," said Filip Mannaert.

"You can't imagine what we saw at that time. The babies were hurt not in the arms, not in the legs, not in the stomach, always the head or the neck. It is something you don't forget."

Carl Haentjens, 30, an ambulance co-ordinator said: "When we arrived, the attack was over and the building evacuated but none of us was sure if he had left. The injuries were bad, the worst I'd ever seen, especially because it involved very young babies."

Dr Ignace Demeyer, the director of the local hospital, said: "This was a particularly violent attack."

Piet Buyse, the mayor of Dendermonde, said: "An act of great brutality has happened here against our weakest citizens.

"The parents are in great shock and so is our city.

"The only thing we can do now is help with the aftermath, with our minds, our hearts and thoughts with the parents.

"We will do everything to support them."

While the attacker was still on the loose Anna Lies Eckhout collected her children aged eight and 10 from the local school, Bijenkorf, just 200 yards from the creche.

"There was mass panic," she said.

"The school was sealed off. The headmaster was in the schoolyard with a megaphone calling the children inside."

Mrs Lies Eckhout said that lessons returned to normal after the attacker was caught.

She said the creche was popular with parents, many of whom commuted 20 miles to Brussels for work.

"Fabeltjesland has a really good reputation. No school can prepare for this," she said.

Nathalie Francois, came with her four year old daughter Tiani, to Vufde Januarui Straat, the scene of the attack, to place flowers in driving rain and bitter winds.

"We are all very shocked. No one can believe that something like this could take place anywhere, especially a small place like here," she said.

Belgium's Crown Prince Phillipe and his wife Princess Mathilde visited the families of the injured children at a local community centre last night.

That's horrible. I can't say I'm surprised, though. Even as I was watching the movie, it crossed my mind that someone would probably try to imitate the Joker in a tragic way.

Just wanted to jump into the discussion. I was a huge fan of The Dark Knight and I did love Heath's portrayal of the joker, but I thought the brilliance of the movie lied within the relationship between joker/batman/dent.

I have a hard time understanding the "worship" of The Joker though. He is easily one of my favorite villains but that is due more to his twisted sense of humor as well as his charisma.

But, anyway to agree with or even talk about The Joker's "philosophy" is just beyond me because I don't think he really has any "philosophy" to speak of. Maybe... maybe you could argue he is an anarchist, or some deranged discordian, but I think  people are looking to closely into the character. I would argue that The Joker is not that complex.

To begin with there are multiple origin stories for The Joker as with most comic book characters but the one I am familiar with and also the one I feel like the Joker in the movie represented was The Killing Joke by Alan Moore, yes the Alan Moore.

Basically it can be argued that The Joker and Batman are one in the same, they just have two very different perspective. It's this duality that makes The Joker the greatest of the Batman villains. Both have been shaped by some tragic event that defines there life. Both have decided that they are "above the law" so to speak and have removed themselves from society. Both feel that they are the ultimate moral authority... the difference is Batman believes that deep down we are all good while The Joker believes that deep down we are all evil. Batman hopes to inspire people that goodness will overcome evil. The Joker tries to tear down the society restraints that people have to show that they are evil.

If your not familiar with The Killing Joke a quick summary goes like this. The Joker is an average man fallen on hard times, he agrees to help the mob rob the plant where he was laid off out of desperation to support his pregnant wife. His wife dies in a tragic accident, later that day he tries to back out  from his deal with the mob. They don't let him, the robbery goes wrong and he is horriably scared. This breaks him, he loses his shit so to speak. He feels that deep down we are all standing on the brink of insanity, that all we need is "one bad day" (this is referred to often in The Killing Joke).

In The Killing Joke the Joker sets out to destroy Commissioner Gordon by terrorizing him but fails, in The Dark Knight he successfully breaks Harvey Dent, who was the "white knight" or the best Gotham had to offer. In both cases he has a need to "break" people to justify his own insanity.

To sum The Joker up, he is a man who was faced with a tragic event and lost it, he terrorizes people to push them over the edge so he can justify his own insanity. In other words he needs to believe that if any of us were in his shoes we would of lost our shit too, this then makes him "normal". People worship him as some kind of hero cause he goes against the flow, and has disregard for society, but his motivations are to prove to himself that he is normal. This is well, pathetic in a sense, I mean it's his desire to prove that he is just like everyone else that drives him.

I'm surprised a person who massacres a day care center has the mental function to paint his face like the Joker.

If the movie can be blamed at all for this, I'd say it made the guy commit the crime maybe a day, two days earlier than he would have anyway. This guy was an atrocity waiting to happen.

How nice, something we can agree on!

Yeah, the Killing Joke was a great comic, it was the first Batman graphic novel I ever read. The Dark Knight seemed to have taken some inspiration from some of the themes within it. I wouldn't be surprised if the comic was part of their reference material. I would also say that the comic was better in the sense that it actually invoked a feeling of sympathy and understanding for the Joker.

And as cheesy as joke was, it was absurd enough that I actually did laugh out loud.

On a loosely related note, I hope the Watchmen movie doesn't suck. I'm not going to jump to the conclusion it will, but I'm skeptical about even coming close the "literary" territory the comic did, if for no other reason than the 2-3 hour limitations of a big screen film.

Quote from: "Miss Anthrope"On a loosely related note, I hope the Watchmen movie doesn't suck. I'm not going to jump to the conclusion it will, but I'm skeptical about even coming close the "literary" territory the comic did, if for no other reason than the 2-3 hour limitations of a big screen film.

The Watchmen could deserve its own thread as I would be interested to see what people thought of Ozymandias and his motivations. But to respond to your statement, me and a buddy had this discussion earlier, and we both would agree with you, the movie can't be as good as the novel, because as you said of the limitations of the film. That being said I am still looking forward to the movie and as long as they don't change the overall theme, or themes I will be satisfied.

On another note, since you started this thread and have read the Killing Joke I would be interested to hear your thoughts on my take of The Joker.

Quote from: "parllagio"Just wanted to jump into the discussion. I was a huge fan of The Dark Knight and I did love Heath's portrayal of the joker, but I thought the brilliance of the movie lied within the relationship between joker/batman/dent.

I have a hard time understanding the "worship" of The Joker though. He is easily one of my favorite villains but that is due more to his twisted sense of humor as well as his charisma.

But, anyway to agree with or even talk about The Joker's "philosophy" is just beyond me because I don't think he really has any "philosophy" to speak of. Maybe... maybe you could argue he is an anarchist, or some deranged discordian, but I think  people are looking to closely into the character. I would argue that The Joker is not that complex.

To begin with there are multiple origin stories for The Joker as with most comic book characters but the one I am familiar with and also the one I feel like the Joker in the movie represented was The Killing Joke by Alan Moore, yes the Alan Moore.

Basically it can be argued that The Joker and Batman are one in the same, they just have two very different perspective. It's this duality that makes The Joker the greatest of the Batman villains. Both have been shaped by some tragic event that defines there life. Both have decided that they are "above the law" so to speak and have removed themselves from society. Both feel that they are the ultimate moral authority... the difference is Batman believes that deep down we are all good while The Joker believes that deep down we are all evil. Batman hopes to inspire people that goodness will overcome evil. The Joker tries to tear down the society restraints that people have to show that they are evil.

If your not familiar with The Killing Joke a quick summary goes like this. The Joker is an average man fallen on hard times, he agrees to help the mob rob the plant where he was laid off out of desperation to support his pregnant wife. His wife dies in a tragic accident, later that day he tries to back out  from his deal with the mob. They don't let him, the robbery goes wrong and he is horriably scared. This breaks him, he loses his shit so to speak. He feels that deep down we are all standing on the brink of insanity, that all we need is "one bad day" (this is referred to often in The Killing Joke).

In The Killing Joke the Joker sets out to destroy Commissioner Gordon by terrorizing him but fails, in The Dark Knight he successfully breaks Harvey Dent, who was the "white knight" or the best Gotham had to offer. In both cases he has a need to "break" people to justify his own insanity.

To sum The Joker up, he is a man who was faced with a tragic event and lost it, he terrorizes people to push them over the edge so he can justify his own insanity. In other words he needs to believe that if any of us were in his shoes we would of lost our shit too, this then makes him "normal". People worship him as some kind of hero cause he goes against the flow, and has disregard for society, but his motivations are to prove to himself that he is normal. This is well, pathetic in a sense, I mean it's his desire to prove that he is just like everyone else that drives him.

Sorry if it seemed like I was ignoring your thoughts. What happened was that I started reading your comment while the page was loading, and loffler's pic from below did that thing where part of the screen doesn't catch up, so it looked like your post was written by Loffler. I've had some...issues..with Loffler, hence why I started my reply with "How nice, something we can agree on..."

Good point, I agree that the Joker doesn't really have a "philosophy" so to speak, not a coherent one anyway. I would also agree that he isn't as complex as many people make him out to be, but more specifically I would say that his behavior and goals are not complex; he is an extrememly intelligent character, and I think that paired with whatever psychological issues/trauma (as far as the "Dark Knight"'s Joker) he's experienced resulted in a mind that became TOO complex for its own good, so he went over the edge and "fell down" to a more primtive/Id-like level. In some ways we all try, or at least desire, to make the world reflect ourselve's while also being reflections OF the world, like an odd dynamic mirror of sorts, perfectly fitting considering the heavily dualistic themes.
When the Joker went "back to basics", his natural response was to try and turn people into creatures like himself, make the world anarchistic. In the Killing Joke, i think ,as you say, the joker's motives were more about making people like himself to justify his behavior. I think this is one of the subtle differnces between that Joker and the Dark Knight's Joker, who we weren't provided enough background information for.

How liberating that must be to just say and do what you please and have no thoughts or worries about their affect on other people.  That was what was most appealing to me in this portrayal of the Joker, I really got the feeling that he was free.  Not that I want to be an uncaring sociopath in real life, but I'd love to be able to go in a flip-off my boss, laugh and do cartwheels out the front door.  Actually not caring or having that nagging worry and conscience must feel wonderful....of course only for the period of time before you go mad and can't control yourself.

Quote from: "VanReal"How liberating that must be to just say and do what you please and have no thoughts or worries about their affect on other people.  That was what was most appealing to me in this portrayal of the Joker, I really got the feeling that he was free.  Not that I want to be an uncaring sociopath in real life, but I'd love to be able to go in a flip-off my boss, laugh and do cartwheels out the front door.  Actually not caring or having that nagging worry and conscience must feel wonderful....of course only for the period of time before you go mad and can't control yourself.

Oh, without a doubt! I almost felt guilty for thinking such a thing, but I think everyone felt that. I mean, I would love to be able to just laugh (enjoy?) while plunging to my death from a building or while I'm being beaten senseless. There really is an element of "freedom" in crazy characters, and I believe that's a huge part of the appeal, whether the characters are benign/cute/funny or dangerously insane.

So true!  I'd even be okay with being Stewie, expecially since no one can hear him but the dog.  Oh well, that's what dreams are for right??

Quote from: "VanReal"How liberating that must be to just say and do what you please and have no thoughts or worries about their affect on other people.  That was what was most appealing to me in this portrayal of the Joker, I really got the feeling that he was free.  Not that I want to be an uncaring sociopath in real life, but I'd love to be able to go in a flip-off my boss, laugh and do cartwheels out the front door.  Actually not caring or having that nagging worry and conscience must feel wonderful....of course only for the period of time before you go mad and can't control yourself.

My point though about The Joker, and granted I am drawing from The Killing Joke as well as The Dark Knight, was that he is not free. He is driven by a need to justify his own downfall. He has to F**k with you in an attempt to push you over the edge which justifies his own insanity. This to me is his obsession with Batman, if he could just get Batman to lose his shit then it would prove to him that anyone can be pushed over the edge thus justifying his own downfall.


And to Miss Anthrope

Quote from: "Miss Anthrope"When the Joker went "back to basics", his natural response was to try and turn people into creatures like himself, make the world anarchistic. In the Killing Joke, i think ,as you say, the joker's motives were more about making people like himself to justify his behavior. I think this is one of the subtle differnces between that Joker and the Dark Knight's Joker, who we weren't provided enough background information for.

I agree we weren't provided with enough back ground information about The Joker in The Dark Knight, but the reason I feel The Joker in The Dark Knight is comparable to The Joker in The Killing Joke was the relationship he had with Harvey Dent. When I watched the hospital scene all I could think about was The Killing Joke and how he was this time going to accomplish his goal with Harvey Dent.

To your other point about The Joker falling back to a more primitive behavior. This is I guess what could be The Joker's philosophy, that we are nothing more than animals and when exposed we will tear each other apart. But this I feel is wrong, and a sad viewpoint. Yes, we are animals but we evolved to be social animals, we rely upon one another and while we can be responsible for horrible actions, we usually do so to protect ourselves and those like us, or to further our cause. This kind of thinking is the biggest beef I have with Christianity because I feel that deep down we are all caring and decent human beings who will go to great lengths to help one another (there are exceptions to this rule but those are a small minority). Christianity teaches us that we have all fallen short of the glory of god, that we are sinners and should be ashamed of ourselves, this is a horrible zeitgeist in today's society. This is why most people feel as though we are at the end of times and that everything is far worse now than it ever has been.

Quote from: "parllagio"My point though about The Joker, and granted I am drawing from The Killing Joke as well as The Dark Knight, was that he is not free. He is driven by a need to justify his own downfall. He has to F**k with you in an attempt to push you over the edge which justifies his own insanity. This to me is his obsession with Batman, if he could just get Batman to lose his shit then it would prove to him that anyone can be pushed over the edge thus justifying his own downfall.

Understood.  I meant free from a conscience telling im what he was doing was wrong.  Not that he wasn't internally tormented or that he didn't have agendas and goals driving him.  That's why I only wanted that ability momentarily, before the crazy sets in.

I loved the lack of background for the Dark Knight Joker. It made him so much more ghastly and menacing. They even faked me out: I remember feeling slightly disappointed when he explained how he got his scars... and then delighted when he gave an entirely different story the second time. Every time they built on this theme -- never giving a name, nothing in his pockets but knives and razors -- I ate it up. He was born fully formed from the brow of Zeus.

Quote from: "Loffler"I loved the lack of background for the Dark Knight Joker. It made him so much more ghastly and menacing. They even faked me out: I remember feeling slightly disappointed when he explained how he got his scars... and the delighted when he gave an entirely different story the second time. Every time they built on this theme -- never giving a name, nothing in his pockets but knives and razors -- I ate it up. He was born fully formed from the brow of Zeus

Same here, the sense of mystery surrounding the character was very effective. It really added to the vague "Is he even a real person?" feeling. Also, his second explanation for his scars was great becasue, as if there weren't enough reasons to know he was insane, that's when it becomes fully clear how disconnected from reality he is.

I think the Joker was the most intriguing character in the Dark Knight. To me, he seems like the product of a traumatic childhood, perhaps adapting to an abusive environment as a child that lead him to become maladapted as a man. I see him as having learned to dissociate as a child as a defense mechanism, his other self absorbing all his fear and anger and gradually becoming the Joker. Then as a man his alter-ego takes over (I wonder if there was a power struggle between his two egos) and a lifetime of fear and rage explodes into Gotham city. The dissociation explains a few things to me, like how childlike he is (his alter-ego did not develop during his childhood) and why so many parts of his psyche are missing (they aren't really missing, but they aren't part of the alter-ego). His alter-ego easily embraces nihilism and replaces right and wrong with victory and defeat, which we see in his sparring with the Batman. He sees the morality of society as a weakness to be exploited. But for what purpose? I think he just wants conflict and chaos. He wants to tear up the lives of those who are moral and show them error of their (in his mind) hypocritical, weak and inferior moral values. I often wonder how Nietzsche's Ãœbermensch would turn out. The Joker?

This was a highly speculative analysis of a fictional character based on almost no supporting evidence. How rational of me! It was fun though.

Quote from: "AlP"I think the Joker was the most intriguing character in the Dark Knight. To me, he seems like the product of a traumatic childhood, perhaps adapting to an abusive environment as a child that lead him to become maladapted as a man. I see him as having learned to dissociate as a child as a defense mechanism, his other self absorbing all his fear and anger and gradually becoming the Joker. Then as a man his alter-ego takes over (I wonder if there was a power struggle between his two egos) and a lifetime of fear and rage explodes into Gotham city. The dissociation explains a few things to me, like how childlike he is (his alter-ego did not develop during his childhood) and why so many parts of his psyche are missing (they aren't really missing, but they aren't part of the alter-ego). His alter-ego easily embraces nihilism and replaces right and wrong with victory and defeat, which we see in his sparring with the Batman. He sees the morality of society as a weakness to be exploited. But for what purpose? I think he just wants conflict and chaos. He wants to tear up the lives of those who are moral and show them error of their (in his mind) hypocritical, weak and inferior moral values. I often wonder how Nietzsche's Ãœbermensch would turn out. The Joker?

This was a highly speculative analysis of a fictional character based on almost no supporting evidence. How rational of me! It was fun though.

Well, he a pretty enigmatic character, so that's all we can really do, speculate. It is fun, though!

I think your analysis was very good, and probably about as close to a concise and accurate theoy of the Joker's past as you can get. Of course, there's also always the possibility that he didn't even have a traumatic childhood, he's just simply screwed up beyond belief due to some sever chemical imbalances.

One thing that appealed to me about this new Joker was his messy style, his exterior matched his internal "decay". I'm not a "dirty" person, but I do tend to find things in a state of deterioration visually appealing, for instance old houses with faded paint and cracks, etc, just seem more natural, and this theme could probably be carried over in a more extreme way to the Joker, he sees society always trying so hard to maintain itself, humans and their constant struggle to bury their primal urges in favor of convoluted rules, and he wants to put an end to the facade. I feel the same way when I watch people who are obsessive about keeping every square inch of their house perfect, or their car, or shoes,  perfectly clean. I could never own a house with a big yard because I would just let it go to hell, I just can't see putting any extraneous effort into controlling nature, its kind of weird how we obtain these little pieces of land and then treat them like our living rooms.