Obviously this is just an excuse to talk about The Dark Knight. Poll in a moment. Unless I change my mind. You never know with me, so don’t wait if you don’t see it.
No. I’d prefer take the Rorschach approach in this situation.
People, as they knew it, had two heroes: Batman and Harvey Dent. Even if they seemed to turn on Batman in the second film, that’s more because they’re all cowards. There didn’t seem to be any shock when Harvey said that he trusted Batman to do the right thing- he was still a good guy. They’ve lost one of their two heroes regardless of what Jim does, but by blaming Batman you’re taking from them the last hero they have left. It’s not enough that he’s out there punching bad guys in the face despite what the people believe about him, Batman was meant to inspire.
Can I try and talk Batman into letting the Joker take the rap? It’s all basically his fault, anyway, and he’s going straight to Arkham anyway, at best—or the chair or solitary in a federal supermax, at worst, if anyone in that universe has any sense. Which they won’t.—and it’s not like he’s going to have a lot of people coming to his defense, even on principle (Not with Rachel already dead, anyway. ZING!).
Even if Batman doesn’t want to blame the Joker, I don’t understand why they have to blame anyone. It was pretty much total chaos that day, they could very easily say, “We don’t know who killed these people.”
As I understand it, Batman wasn’t asking Gordon to do anything. He was going to handle the rumormongering himself; all he was asking of Gordon was to not quash the rumors.
No, of course not. It doesn’t make a lick of sense, like most other things in that turgid, depressing, over-rated movie.
The state of Gotham in those early days make the need to actually pursue truth absolute for those who are actually on the right side.
Batman, Gordon, the few other non-corrupt cops, Dent’s replacement as DA (presuming they’re not as corrupt as his predecessor)…they need to be incorruptible - not spinning the truth for their friends’ sakes.
Even if the truth doesn’t out - and it might not, although what motivation does the guy Harvey almost capped have to keep quiet? - but it sets a bad precedent, especially when half what they need to do is deal with the corrupt cops, lawyers, judges, &c.
I thought Jim Gordon was the drummer that bashed his mothers head in with a hammer.
I really liked Joker in that movie but not much else, and I love Batman. I don’t really know why batman had to take the rap. Let me link to a youtube video that expresses my thoughts:
It doesn’t answer why either but it says exactly how I feel. And besides, I am utterly, utterly disappointed in Christian Bale and his stupid raspy voice and his stupid big muscles. I miss Michael Keaton. 
He was both Batman and Bruce Wayne.
I loved the movie, but I too never understood why Batman had to be blamed. I understand not wanting news to come out that Dent killed them, but I don’t understand why it couldn’t just have been Joker, or one of his henchmen. Hell, it doesn’t even make sense as, as far as we know, up to that point Batman hadn’t killed anyone, and his motivation for killing them is lacking. Why would he save Dent from the joker only to kill him later? Joker killing him is easily justifiable and they easily could have used the hushed news that Dent was missing from the hospital when the joker blew it up as reason for people to believe that Joker kidnapped him right before blowing it up.
I get that they wanted to have the cops after him, presumably as an excuse to hire Bane as a mercenary to capture him, but surely they could have come up with a better way that didn’t rely on the audience being dumb.
Anaamika is the Riddler!
In a sense, Batman is part of the public. He’s not an elected official, but he can’t do his job without the people’s approval (or at least, not well). He’s a public servant…this is ‘his’ Gotham.
So if the people need Harvey Dent, they need Harvey Dent. And why not let him go out the ‘good guy’? Batman was toying of leaving the ‘public life’ for a more, uh, public one. So I think at that point, his mentality was different.
I want to laugh, but I don’t get it. 
I was just picturing that line being delivered by a freshly-defeated supervillain, is all. Preferably one who lacks muscles and raspiness.
Ok, now it made me giggle. I see where you are coming from. Stupid big muscled Batman.
The people DON’T need Harvey Dent. They need a police force (and semi-officially-sanctioned vigilante) they can trust to not bend the truth into a pretzel to protect their friends.
Gotham City is a cesspool of corruption, something that Gordon, Batman, and Dent were trying to fix. But now, Dent has gone mad and died, and Gordon and Batman have started down the path of ‘well, I’d rather Person A take the fall than Person B, who actually did it…I’ll just frame Person A’. Yes, ‘Person A’ in this case is Batman, who is participating in his own frame job, but they’re still setting the precedent for themselves that it’s OK to do that. And, if the story comes out - if any of the people who know decide to spill, or if someone ends up finding anomalous evidence, and putting two-and-two together…even if they haven’t gone ahead and fallen into cronyism, they’ve destroyed the trust the public may have had in them by showing that, yes, they’re willing to do exactly what the people they were displacing did.
Interesting coincidence, but I’ve been reading this pathologically in-depth round table review of The Dark Knight over at Comics Alliance, and they just pointed out a perfect, in-film justification for Batman taking the blame for Harvey’s crimes.
It’s in the scene where Batman tracks down Maroni, played by Eric Roberts, and tries to intimidate him in the usual Batman manner. And it doesn’t work, because Maroni has figured out that, for all of Batman’s threats and intimidation, he never actually kills anyone. For a guy who’s entire schtick revolves around scaring the piss out of people, knowing there a line that he absolutely will not cross takes a lot of the wind out of his sails. Taking the heat for the murders fixes that: the next thug he dangles off a rooftop is going to think that this is the same guy who gunned a bunch of people down in cold blood a couple months ago.
It kind of makes sense, but I’m not sure I bite for a couple reasons. One, in the first movie, they make a clear perspective of Batman’s view of criminals; that Maroni stood up to it was that he was an exceptions as a crime boss, rather than the typical. I think he sees criminals as pretty uncomplicated with simple motivations and, thus, easy to manipulate to get the information he needs. I don’t think he think he needs a complicated method of tricking them, especially if it had been working so well up to that point.
Two, he didn’t need to kill Maroni, he still managed to get information out of him by crippling him. Similarly, as at the end of the first movie, he may not kill someone, but he won’t necessarily save them. I think he can continue to get information from most criminals just with straight up fear, and if he runs into another individual like Maroni, he can treat that person in the same way.
And third, when he insists on taking the blame, he’s going on about how they need Dent and he can be whatever Gotham needs him to be. I suppose he could have had ulterior motives, but it strikes me much more as a fan-wank than an intended motivation. If anything, I’d be more inclined to believe that he thought he had to take the blame because he was so convinced that Dent’s image needed to be saved and didn’t really think it through enough to try to come up with another possibility, especially since Gordon had been silly enough to make a perimeter there and it all is taking place after the capture of the Joker.
Not to mention, there’s Gordon’s whole speech at the end, going on about he’s the hero we deserve, but don’t need right now, and that he’s running because we have to chase him. He certainly seems to understand why and it seems to be all about virtues and such, not as a trick against the baddies.
I laughed out loud when I got to the part about Batman not needing a complicated method of tricking people in order to intimidate them. This is Batman. His entire existence is a complicated method of tricking criminals into being scared of him.
I also think the idea that Maroni is meant to be viewed as somehow exceptional represents a fundamentally flawed understanding of his character’s role in the film. Maroni (and Falcone in the first movie) exists for the express purpose of representing “old crime,” as contrasted with “super crime” in the person of people like the Joker and Ras al’Ghul. Maroni is in the film to show how regular, “real world” criminals are reacting to the conflict between Batman and the Joker - and it turns out, they’re a hell of a lot more scared of the Joker than they are of Batman.
Yes, the “dangle them off a rooftop” trick worked great in the first film: the purpose of this scene in the second film is to show that the methods Batman was using in the first film aren’t working any more. Things have changed - or, more pertinently, things have escalated, which is one of the movie’s central themes. Batman can’t get what he needs just by being scary anymore, because people are starting to see through the ruse. To get Maroni to talk, he has to actually torture him, and it still doesn’t work completely. Maroni starts to talk, but clams up pretty fast. It’s a far cry from the torrent of confessions he used to get just by getting up in a guy’s face and rasping at him.
Yeah, that’s what he tells Gordon, because that’s the message that Gordon will respond to. This is film that can’t go five minutes without one character lying to another about their methods or motivations. I think the only character who doesn’t do this at some point is Rachel Dawes. Every single other character engages in deceit and misdirection at some point: certainly, it’s the Joker’s defining character trait, but it’s also pretty central to this depiction of Batman (both as Batman, and his foppish, irresponsible antics as Bruce Wayne), and includes Harvey Dent (his schtick with the trick coin, his courtroom theatrics) and Jim Gordon (faking his own death). Even Alfred deceives Bruce by burning the letter Rachel wrote about her decision to marry Harvey.
That said, I don’t think Batman’s idea about Harvey being a martyr for Gotham is necessarily a lie, but I don’t think it’s the whole truth by a wide margin. Actually, I think the actual motivation for covering up Harvey’s actions is even simpler, and probably not something Batman would be willing to admit even to himself: if word gets out that Harvey snapped, the Joker wins. And Batman doesn’t want him to have that victory, not for any grand ideal or master strategy for saving the city, but simply because fuck that guy.
Batman takes the blame for Dent’s crimes simply out of guilt. He feels responsible for being unable to stop what happened to Dent, and therefore pins the blame on himself.