I guess that I don’t really see how it diminishes Dent in any major way to point out that after the trauma of his fiancee’s murder and having half his face burned off he loses his shit. Blame it on his skull getting cooked. Call it a brain injury. ICU psychosis. Unexpected drug reaction. Delirium from infection and fever. Tragic, but not something that leads to the downfall of the whole Gotham justice system. If the Joker hadn’t blown up the hospital, Dent would have been under medical care, tragedy could have been avoided, etc. etc.
Sort of. I think he’s punishing himself for* Rachel*, not for Harvey. Both he and Harvey wanted him to save her first. Though she might well not have forgiven him for making that choice.
Miller, though I think you were basically spot-on in your analysis, I have a tiny quibble with one line:
I haven’t seen the movie in a while, but I don’t think Alfred quite lies to Bruce, or even deceives him. As I recall, when Bruce asks what the letter was, Alfred says something to the effect that it was nothing important.
And that’s certainly true. There is literally no point in Bruce learning that Rachel had decided to marry Dent because she was out of love with Bruce. It simply doesn’t matter now that Rachel is dead – except that, if Bruce learns it, his grieving rage will be so magnified that he’ll likely get himself killed without accomplishing anything good.
Quite true. It’s off topic, but I can recall a comic in which Batman is dragging the wounded Joker through a snowy wilderness to get medical treatment, and the Joker, in a rare moment of lucidity, asks him why he won’t do it. Batman’s answer basically boils down to “Because you want me to, and I will die before I let you get a damn thing from me, asshole.”
He doesn’t directly lie to Bruce (although, IIRC, he is breaking a promise to Rachel when he doesn’t deliver the letter), but he is deliberately withholding information from him with the intent of allowing Bruce to continue to believe something that isn’t true. It’s not an honest action, but it is, unquestionably, the right thing for him to do.
Well, obviously I agree with that last clause. I just don’t agree that Alfred even crossed the line into dishonesty, because I don’t recall him actually promising to deliver the letter. She asked him to do so, but he never said he would. 
I see accepting the letter as agreeing to do as she asked. But I do not see what he did as being dishonest. She wanted to make Bruce aware of her intentions. But her death mixed with the course of events meant that all it would do is hurt him, which was not what she wanted.
Alfred was acting in the spirit of what she would have wanted. He knew her well enough to know she wouldn;t want to hurt Bruce.
FTR, I just popped the movie in. Here’s what Maroni says after Batman throws him off the fire escape:
Batman: Where is he?
Maroni: I don’t know where he is. He found us.
Batman: He must have friends.
Maroni: Friends? Have you met this guy?
Batman: Someone knows where he is!
Maroni: Nobody’s going to tell you nothing. They’re wise to your act. You got rules. The Joker? He’s got no rules.
Then he taunts him a little bit about not revealing his identity like the Joker’s demanded, and the scene ends. He gives up almost no information, and makes it clear that the criminal underworld is way more scared of the Joker at this point than they are of Batman. 'Course, I was just arguing that you can’t take anyone at their word in this film, so it’s possible that Maroni is lying about how other criminals will react to Batman, but given what the Joker’s been doing to mob figures who try to push back against him, his argument sounds pretty convincing to me.
Naaawww…! You mean sweet, forgiving, entirely sufferable Rachel? 
I think Batman taking the rap makes more sense if you remember the Batman wannabes at the beginning of the film. Batman is a vigilante, emulating his approach is counter productive. He’s a sticking plaster for Gotham’s problems, but ultimately what is needed is for the public to stand up against the criminals, by supporting the law. They need to follow Dent’s example. The Joker couldn’t be blamed for Dent’s death, as he was already captured at that point.
On the Dent/Rachel save, IIRC Batman went after Rachel, but found that the Joker had switched the locations, so he ended up saving Dent.
Just wanted to add that, in between BATMAN BEGINS and THE DARK KNIGHT, the comics involved someone dressed up as Batman shooting a guy in the face, and our hero went with it because, hey, it adds to his “scary” rep.
Yep - I can’t read the thread title without mentally going there. Batman taking the rap?! But Jim Gordon is the schizophrenic!
I always think of the Batman character as Commissioner Gordon…
I should really watch it again before asking this question, but wasn’t it implied the RICO case against all of the thugs would have fallen apart if it got out that Dent was crooked?
No, because Dent wasn’t crooked until after (a) his face was cooked off, and (b) his fiance was blown up. He was in the hospital and a tad mentally unbalanced at that point. I think there’s plenty of room to point to “medical complications from difficult emotional situations” without all of Harvey Dent’s reputation and career imploding.
I’m contemplating the comments about his schtick no longer being enough and needing to up the ante, so taking on the reputation increases his ability to work criminals. Making him a villain might also cut down on the imitators, as suggested, so maybe that’s a reason, too.
But I don’t accept the heat of the moment “I’ve got to be the Bad Guy to protect Dent’s reputation”. Didn’t make sense to me.
Definitely no. People are used to their political reps being lying scum. Plus, Dent kind of went crazy after what he went through. Put his face on a poster and there’ll be no end of people giving him a free pass. People would be disappointed but get over it
The more I think about it, the more I like the ‘make Batman a scarier, creepier guy that the citizens won’t like so much’ idea. ISTM that Batman doesn’t want to take up a permanent position as an extra-legal cop; the one that folks can always rely on to clean up messes in Gotham; the superhero. Batman wants more people like Dent used to be - normal folks who will stand up to corruption and crime rather than hoping that someone else will fix the problem. Batman is a short-term fix to a problem, not a permanent one, and the more people that want to copy his vigilante ways, the worse the city will get overall.
So, make Batman a guy that everyday citizens are uneasy about and they might throw their support behind a less corrupt police force, etc. Heck, a noble lie would be that Batman killed Dent because he was looking into collusion between Batman and one or the other criminal organizations.
Wow, how have I not seen that video up until now? Thanks for linking it.
And I agree, Dark Knight was way overrated, though the Joker was fantastic. Had they cut Dent entirely and made the movie more focused, and without the beyond silly sonar phone, they may have had something. As is, Batman Begins is a far better film.
And no, I would not let Batman take the fall because it’s stupid.
That, I think, is precisely the point. People would get over it. Dent would be remembered as just another politician, better than most, but ultimately, he’s the guy who put a loaded .357 up against the head of a child because he was angry at the kid’s dad.
What Gordon and Batman are doing, here, is making sure that people don’t get over it. They want people to be angry that Dent’s gone. Angry enough that they’ll get involved in making the city a better place to live. Dent’s a martyr, now: an unblemished hero who can serve as a symbol of what Gotham could be. He’s a rallying point for civic pride and political involvement. He stands for the best in all of us. If the truth comes out, it means that the best in all of us still isn’t good enough, and people start to disengage, and the whole city slides back to the apathy and disillusion they were in at the beginning of the first film.
:: suddenly notices Miller’s name ::
:: glares ::
In the first film, Ras mentions that when the Waynes were killed, the shock galvanised the city to do something about their situation, and as such resisted being torn apart by corruption (hence their desire to destroy it properly). Maybe the death of another incorruptible public figure will garner the same result.