In response to YouTube Channel ScreenPrism, regarding the video titled “The Dark Knight: How Did the Joker Get His Scars?”:
The Dark Knight title is later in an acronym. TDK.
It starts with a statement about the TDK Joker being different from the other, preceding ones. This is excusing from offering the audience a deep conversation about why exactly is he different. In a tactful manner.
– “The scars, the scars, we need to know how he got the scars!”
Let us shift all focus to that question.
How are they different from the characters in TDK, which they so apparently look down upon, trying to rationalize?
What they are doing is dealing in sensationalism.
The ‘canon’ material was not mentioned, according to which, the third story concerns the Batman’s culpability upon bringing Joker to his current state.
Because this story (Or its absence) would make them responsible and obliged as it would require to bring more knowledge to the table of discussion.
Not to be too much accusing, but their proposed view, just like the other video I’ve seen on ScreenPrism – on TV series “MindHunter”, is incomplete, inaccurate. Is biased and misleading. Most probably a disbalance in the left brain. In our case, they were wrong on all accounts.
I stand to correct; as they seem to be ambitious, and I would hope, could do well on their own, not to do a lazy, half-hearted journalistic work. It troubles someone concerned about the motives of the film and its morality in general.
They’ve put all the movie clips they wanted but didn’t have a case in the first place.
And in the end, they don’t make any argument.
Not to mention the advertisement inserted in the middle of the video.
As for the lacking citation of Christopher Nolan, director.
Another interview is with him stating that the character was intended to be more like a hurricane, a sensible force of natural law that is unstoppable. Natural law in the flesh.
Apparently- the aim was not to make the scariest character ever, but instead to make sure people change perspective – on how frightening the truth is to them, when and how they witness it, and of course, what they do about it.
An ego is an illusion. An alter-ego, doubly so.
The review was Symptomatic. Cycled on a loop;
Focused on the text instead of the meaning contained in it.
Even at the exposition TDK tests the audience;
All the misled people will overlook that it is intentionally made bad, all people that will cherish this film for what it stands for, are just happy there is a director who came and made this for them. They are satisfied and will not do anything else for the world.
This is consumption VS creation.
This is why through bad critics the cycle of oppression and psychopathy continues.
In the minds of uninitiated people who might be watching.
They came close in understanding that the Joker tries to paint the society as illogical and meaningless, just failed at the reasoning: is he right, and if so, why.
We as an audience, already know the origin of Bruce Wayne’s trauma which in the first film of the trilogy led to his alter-ego.
What TDK conveys is the becoming of Two-Face (that is Harvey-Dent) as a villain,
mirroring it with the coming up of Batman. All the while, Joker serving as a test group.
Therefore, what we look into the origin of Harvey Dent, instead of the origin of the Joker:
Harvey was repeatedly beaten by his father, who allegedly used a coin with two identical sides to decide the outcome, thus mocking the boy’s hope. Dent was driven to become a lawyer. This was a good thing, but it is, perhaps, a bad choice.
“Joker did the same mental scarring to Harvey Dent”, they state.
No. Sadly, Harvey did it all to himself. He has a free choice, but he ties his self to a binary outcome. The hospital incident was a trigger for an already existing mental disorder, when in fact it could cure him.
Harvey is so ego-centered, that himself believes nothing he does makes him morally culpable. It’s all chance. He is a puppet in the hands of something else. His very mind is corrupted. This is very much infantile, not to say solipsistic.
The Joker is brave enough to decide for himself, each time, what the outcome of his action would bring, and what’s most important: Is how to act accordingly. He takes full responsibility Every time.
To say the coin-toss is something so unexpected, that only the Joker would do such a thing- is not too far from the truth. It is simply wrong. And this exact point is brought out explicitly in what he does. The intuition that this character possesses is intense enough for people to fall under the impression that this is an act of god.
But it is a result of self-reflection. It is sometimes called “flow”.
Think of how Batman is often portrayed as always ready in advance for any occurrence. We would say then, the unexpected is in the beholder’s eye.
And context is what makes a joke work.
To Summarize; Batman is the one who, as said, is obsessed with the moment when he got his psyche scarred. Not Joker. Funny that they both wear it all the time.
Joker attempts over and over to get Bruce to get the mask off.
Bruce unconsciously doesn’t. But what could happen if he did?
The difference is, Batman is schizophrenic, while Joker is prognostic.
Batman is flawed with hubris, the joker prides himself on the made journey.
Bruce and Harvey fear responsibility from or to people. It drives them. But what drives Joker is the narratives he reflects on others.
Batman and Joker can’t stop. They would then be punished by society.
And would be obligated to lead a double life. Treated for illness and kept conscious of how being a rich person doesn’t necessarily make the world a better place.
A true psychopath would seize all power and status he can get to corrupt the system further. This trait we witness in the study of Harvey Dent.
He even accomplishes it being dead in the grave.
The Joker’s actions, and not necessarily his personality traits or his past, were the antidote. At least they kept him living.
Thus, being self-sufficient, he uses the required minimum for the task and prides himself on that.
Now you know why Joker tells Batman “You won’t kill me out of some misplaced sense of self-righteousness, and I won’t kill you, because you’re just too much fun. I think you and I are destined to do this forever.”.
He means the audience and the cliche narratives they expect from the comicbook characters they’ve been raised to love.
Anyone who says Batman and Joker is two sides of the same coin simply doesn’t know what they’re talking about.
One is an oppressed subject of society’s sick construct against self-defense, and the other is indulging in the notion of being openly mad.
Psychopathic-driven society has blurred the division between these two,
often masking one for the other.