Take the 2-minute tour ×
Movies & TV Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for movie and tv enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

In the movie The Dark Knight, why the Joker choose Harvey Dent to bring him down to his level? Why not Batman himself?

share|improve this question
1  
Because he was the white knight of Gotham. –  user Nov 25 '13 at 10:39

1 Answer 1

up vote 7 down vote accepted

The Joker chose all three (Harvey, the Batman, and Jim Gordon), each in his own way, but only Harvey fell completely.

Harvey was attacked through the loved one, done by kidnapping and murder. The Joker gave the Batman switched locations, because he knew that the Batman would go after Rachel (The way you threw yourself after her), so with one move he achieved a strong blow (soon to be proven fatal) to Harvey, and heavy guilt on the Batman who made the choice who to save, and never forgave himself (the guilt follows him to "The Dark Knight Rises", almost a decade later).

This was done while the Joker was in custody, and by using Jim Gordon's corrupted police officers, making Jim Gordon directly responsible for the outcome.

In effect, Harvey felt betrayed by his colleagues and he has turned on them, but in reality, all of them were victims of the Joker's plan.

The Barman: What happened to Rachel wasn't chance. We decided to act. We three.

Harvey: Then why was it me who was the only one who lost everything?

The Batman: It wasn't.

Bruce also lost Rachel who he believed was going to marry him.

Jim Gordon almost lost his son, although not through the Joker's direct actions. However, in "The Dark Knight Rises" we see the real aftermath on him: the events and his consequential crime fighting obsession cost him his family.

Congressman: Anyone shown him the crime stats?

Foley: He goes by his gut and it continues to bother him, no matter what the numbers.

Congressman: Must be popular with his wife.

Foley: Not really, she took the kids and left for Cleveland.

In my opinion, Harvey was the weak link. Bruce and Gordon endured (although, Bruce almost gave in to the Joker's demands, and later became a recluse). They were mostly cool-headed, fighting crime, while Harvey was more into public theatrics (for example, the courtroom scene), and rash decisions (for example, abduction of Thomas Schiff), while completely unfit to deal with the consequences of the actions that were his, and not just his colleagues'.

So, Harvey was the only one who fell, but all three were attacked by the Joker.

share|improve this answer
1  
Very good answer. In addition the Joker also tried to challenge the Batman into forgetting his "one rule" (which didn't succeed). Though he succeeded a bit in driving Batman farther than before when he built up that super surveillance machine (which was utter rubbish, but that is a different question ;-)). –  Sonny Burnett Nov 23 '13 at 14:44
    
Yes. The Joker explicitly said that the Batman would have to break his One rule, and was maniacally laughing after the Batman threw him from the top of the building, believing that he had won. Murderous Batman would, in a long run, have been his ultimate victory in the fight for Gotham's soul. –  Vedran Šego Nov 23 '13 at 14:47
    
While the answer is pretty much right in that he attacked all three in their own ways, this other answer might provide some insight why Harvey was the most important. Especially the dialogue right after your first quote "Harvey: But the Joker chose me! - Batman: Because you were the best of us.". –  Sonny Burnett Nov 23 '13 at 14:55
    
All three of them were important, each in his own way. I completely disagree that Harvey was the best of them (I'm leaning towards Jim Gordon here) and that is why I avoided quoting that part. The Batman and Jim Gordon did most of the hard work, but did so in the shadows. For that reason, Harvey was crucial and, in a way, Batman's only likely "heir" after the law enforcement transfers from the unlawful vigilante (as the Batman is often seen) to the elected officials. Harvey was most exposed one, and this made him a logical target through which the wide population was to be affected. –  Vedran Šego Nov 23 '13 at 15:20
    
Hmm, makes sense. Very insightful comments. –  Sonny Burnett Nov 23 '13 at 21:55

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.