Why The Joker Is Still The Best Villain Ever
Every movie enthusiast has seen (or should have seen) The Dark Knight, a masterfully crafted film that exceeded every expectation, from the initially not so well received casting choices (that turned out to be some of the greatest performances ever), the mind blowing score, the deeper psychological and philosophical themes, and more.
In short, so much can be said about this movie, and even though there are several elements that make for this masterpiece, there is one that is without a doubt, the reason this movie stands out so high above your average superhero flick; and that is, you guessed it: The Joker.
But how is it that having such an iconic and compelling character such as Batman, a hero of unquestionable morals, a just cause, and bad ass suit and tech, comes second to a sociopath clown with some weird makeup and a purple suit? How can the Joker, a character so seemingly unpredictable and unstable, take the spotlight in the movie that is supposed to be about the good guy?
Well first of all, in case you didn’t notice, the Joker won by the end of the movie, he did everything he set up to achieve from the beginning of the film, but before we begin, we must try to understand a character that is seemingly beyond comprehension.
Utilitarianism VS Categorical Imperatives
First a question. Do you think Batman should kill the Joker? I’m not talking only about this movie, but in the countless stories across comics, cartoons, TV series, videogames etc. Where Batman imprisons the Joker, he (obviously) escapes, and goes on to commit crimes that result in hundreds of deaths and casualties of innocents. Is Batman partly to blame for not putting a final stop and killing the Joker? Or is he a morally superior being because he is incorruptible?
There are arguments on both sides. First the utilitarian view.
Utilitarianism can be traced all the way back to ancient Greece (as always) with Epicurus, who defined utilitarianism as the philosophy of measuring actions by the happiness or pleasure they produce. One should always seek to maximize happiness in terms of the amount of people affected, and in the level of happiness achieved. Sometimes confused with Hedonism, which only seeks the pleasurable in short term, sacrificing real happiness, utilitarianism bides by the principle of utility, you must make the choice that produces the most happiness and good for the most people.
You probably realized that Batman is no utilitarianist, as the choice that would benefit society the most is to simply kill the Joker, after all, he is no innocent. You also probably think that he should just do it, but before you make up your mind let’s just consider a little thought experiment.
Imagine the Joker had Rachel, Gordon, and Harvey locked up, and as Batman arrives to the rescue, the Joker tells him he can save two of his friends, but he must kill one, otherwise he will kill the three of them. Should Batman kill one innocent to save the other two? Not a very easy or ideal scenario. Classic utilitarianism would give green light to the Batman, you must do it so the other two can live; however, there is a little variation in this philosophy called rule utilitarianism, which would argue that people must also abide by general rules that are likely to help achieve the greater good for the greatest amount of people, thinking long term and how it may affect society as a whole.
Imagine a word where the government, in classic utilitarianism fashion, goes around abducting healthy homeless people and harvesting their organs to save 5 different transplant patients. You kill only one person and save five, but at what cost?
As you know, Batman is no policeman, he operates outside the law, hence, he is a criminal, but he has no problem in being one, and this is because he goes by a personal code, just like good ol’ Captain America, different as they might be, they are both essentially Kantian.
What this means is that they abide by what is commonly called a maxim: “Act in such a way that your behavior could become a universal standard”. If you think lying is wrong, you shouldn’t lie under any circumstance even if you think that in some cases it’s better to do so, the same goes for killing, stealing, cheating, even cutting line in the supermarket.
You could think this is a rather uptight philosophy, but ask yourself, wouldn’t you like to live in a world where more people like Batman and Captain America exist? (Although they both break their own rules in the end of The Dark Knight and Civil War, that is why the villains partially win in these movies).
The Joker’s Charm
And what does all this gibberish has to do with the Joker’s likeability you might ask. First of all, we have to understand the particular narrative in which the Joker operates. He is the antagonist in a superhero movie, however “Superhero movie” is not a genre as many people think, you don’t say a movie is an “animal genre” if it has cats and dogs in it; it could be a comedy, a drama, a musical, a documentary, etc. The same way guitar or piano are not musical genres. These are elements that work in a bigger picture, and together they construct the genre.
So superhero movies, are just that, movies that happen to have superheroes in them, but they can range in a great variety of genres such as:
· Bright burn (Horror)
· Winter Soldier (Spy Thriller)
· Guardians of the galaxy vol.2 (Comedy)
· The Dark Knight (Drama)
So for this particular genre, there are two main elements that make for a great antagonist:
1. He does not have an unnecessary tragic backstory: many writers and Hollywood producers think that giving the villain a sad childhood they can turn anyone into the most sadistic antagonist. This is sometimes true, for characters with whom we need to empathize with or that have some sort of redemption arc (Killmonger, Prince Zuko, etc). But characters like the Joker, Hannibal Lecter, Sauron, etc. are the embodiment of evil and chaos, and as such, we don’t need to understand the reasons behind their actions, they are just forces of nature that serve a thematic purpose, which brings me to the next element.
2. Thematic opposition with the antagonist: The single most important reason why the Joker is the best Batman villain, is because he is in direct opposition with everything he represents. In a nutshell, it is order vs chaos. Batman wants to take the mafia off the streets to restore peace and order in Gotham, and he believes that people are inherently good and can find meaning in helping others despite their suffering. The Joker on the other hand, wants to prove to everybody that we are no better than animals, the artificial order we created will easily crumble if pushed right beyond the edge: we are just one bad day away of becoming full sociopaths.
So in this sense, the story is led and defined by the Joker. Batman’s journey is defined by his villain, as it revolves around the interaction between these two characters, not in themselves as individuals. Like a chess game, every move a player makes depends on the previous move by its opponent, you can plan ahead and foresee things as long as you know the game, but any player’s move can completely shift the tables, and Harvey Dent is the key component of this game. He is the canvass in which the hero and the villain will paint their ideological battle, and only one will emerge victorious.
To define his ideology, the first line of dialogue delivered by the Joker in the movie is: “I believe, whatever doesn’t kill you, simply makes you stranger”
This perfectly encapsulates the essence of the character, he rejects the positive philosophy of people like Batman, he believes that these traumatic or stressful situations not only not help you grow stronger, but traumatize you, take parts of you until you become a shadow of your former self.
Not only attractive, but menacing
And how can the Joker become a threat for Batman? After all, he is physically inferior, and has far less technology and resources. But he is a psychological threat, he is an idea, a disease. He corners Batman in every step, eliminating his ability to choose, as in the memorable scene where he has to save either the love of his life or Harvey, Gotham’s white knight. The Joker makes him think he gave him the choice, but he always knew Batman would save Rachel, so he tricked him into saving Harvey, just another small step in his master plan.
In the beginning of the essay I said that the Joker won, even though in the end Batman captured and sent him to jail, saving the day without sacrificing his morality. However, this was a battle for Gotham’s soul; the Joker corrupted Harvey, the symbol of hope by excellence. He proved that even the best could give in to darkness and chaos. And he also made Batman break his №1 Rule: No killing. He had to kill Harvey not only to save Gordon’s family, but also to prevent Gotham’s citizens to realize that their idol was corrupted. He tried to prevent Gotham into falling once again into the mob’s hands, by sacrificing the Batman persona and giving Harvey a martyr status.
Imagine for a second that in Christian faith, Christ never came back, but the Church fabricated that he did, in order to elevate his status to that of the divine; to create a false idol that people could look up to and worship, so that they could be easily controlled and peace could reign. Sounds familiar?
There is a very interesting similarity between this movie’s conclusion and a chapter from Dostoyevsky’s book “Brothers Karamazov” titled “The Grand Inquisitor”.
In this tale, Jesus comes back to medieval Spain during the Inquisition, and starts making miracles and preaching to the masses, until the church decides to arrest him. In his cell, he is visited by the highest of the church’s authorities: The Grand Inquisitor.
The rest of the tale is just a huge monologue with very interesting implications. The Grand Inquisitor tells Jesus that his greatest mistake was not to make people bow and worship him. When given freedom, people will always choose what is pleasurable and evil. This is exactly what the Joker tells Batman when they are in the interrogation room: “Their morals, their code, is a bad code, is a bad joke, dropped at the first sign of trouble, they are only as good as the world allows them to be, I’ll show you, when the chips are down, these civilized people, they’ll eat each other, see I’m not a monster, I’m just ahead of the curve”.
People don’t choose to follow God just because, he continues, they need motivation, a bigger reward, and salvation from suffering.
In The Dark Knight, Batman transitioned from being the Christ figure, an exemplary hero with incorruptible morals, to The Grand Inquisitor. He created the Harvey Dent martyr image, by killing him (just like the church crucified Jesus) and used that symbol to keep the peace and later make the so called “Dent Act” that gave more power to the police and judiciary system to keep the peace.
So Batman had to kill and lie, Gordon had to make the man who nearly killed his family into a hero, Rachel died, Harvey was corrupted and killed, and all of these are just seeds that provoke the rising chaos that erupts in the third movie.
So was the Joker right?
Yes, and no. It is true that at the core, we are social animals with basic impulses, instincts and needs. If pushed beyond the edge, we are capable of great evil. Throughout history, we have found ways to torture and murder by the masses without a pinch of guilt. But humanity has also proved its immense resolve for good, and not only in “ideal” circumstances. People have put their own lives on the line for a cause or another fellow being, and work every day to bring the world closer to justice and harmony, and stories like The Dark Knight are a mirror reflection of what we can achieve as a society, it’s a matter of will and choice. Under the direst of circumstances, a person can rise to the occasion and be like the Batman.
If you liked this article, be sure to follow us up on Medium & also check out our site where we have tons of other articles & reviews in www.epiloguers.com
Be sure to also follow us on our Twitter, Instagram & YouTube account for your daily dose of Epiloguers.
