Movies & TV Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for movie and tv enthusiasts. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Near the end of The Dark Knight, Gordon says he cannot cover up the murders of 5 people, 2 of them cops. But how would the public know that Harvey committed those crimes? Why did they have to blame it on the Batman? Why couldn't they blame somebody else, perhaps Maroni since he is dead already? I understand that the 2 cops are Wurtz and Ramirez, but who are the other 3 who are killed by Harvey? Even the death of Harvey could be blamed on some unknown person. I just feel it was unnecessary to blame everything on Batman.

EDIT: I do not understand how this question is a duplicate of Why were Harvey Dent's sins covered up?? That question asks why Harvey's sins were covered up, while this question asks why put the sins on Harvey in the first place if you are going to cover it up?

share|improve this question
possible duplicate of Why were Harvey Dent's sins covered up? – Vedran Šego Feb 2 '14 at 15:42
(OPINION) I understand why they blamed it on him (the hero Gotham needs and deserves, etc) but you make a great point. In reality, it's just to add angst and that "dark, gritty realism" that rebooted Batman with Miller's Dark Knight work and other things like Watchmen. It has to be dark and anti-hero to be "more real" and less comic-booky in too many people's eyes. Dark = good and acceptable for grown-ups. Too bad things like Grant Morrison's Doom Patrol and Animal Man and Peter Milligan's Shade (which are just as deep if not deeper) are not clambered-for works. Same with Jeff Smith's Bone. – Meat Trademark Feb 2 '14 at 15:43
@Vedran please see the edit in the question. – Cool_Coder Feb 2 '14 at 15:47
O.K., thank you for the clarification. I have retracted my "close" vote (although there are 2 others). – Vedran Šego Feb 2 '14 at 15:54

The death of Harvey Dent was going to be a huge blow to the city. Harvey had gotten rid of virtually all of corrupt crime in Gotham. Once word got out that he was dead, the public (I.E. the various newspapers, magazines and who knows who else) would naturally want to know the circumstances of his death. It would soon get out that Harvey had killed Maroni himself, as well as threatened Gordon and his kids. Such a bombshell would wind up destroying any hope that regular Gothamites would have had for the future. Not to mention that all the people Harvey would have locked up would naturally have wanted another day in court to argue that Harvey was not of sane mind when he prosecuted them. Most of the smaller criminals would still stay behind bars, but the larger ones would be able to use Harvey's turn as Two-Face as an almost literal 'get out of jail free card'. Gordon and Batman realised this. They needed someone to be an easy scapegoat in case any investigation got too close to the truth. Which is why Batman offered himself up. Being someone who many Gothamites either see as a figment or as someone who might be on the wrong side of the law, it'd be easy enough for Batman to be able to shoulder the blame. And as we saw at the beginning of The Dark Knight Rises, Bruce Wayne opted to simply stop being Batman for an extended period, making people think that he just simply disappeared.

share|improve this answer
I agree that if people knew what Harvey had done, everything that he had done would be undone. But since only Batman and Gordon knew this truth about Harvey, they could have pretty much made a scapegoat out of somebody else instead of Batman IMHO. This is somewhat a topic which I am unable to comprehend... – Cool_Coder Feb 4 '14 at 16:06
@Cool_Coder, think about all the investigative journalism - both legit and not-so-legit - that we have in 'our' world. If someone wanted to start investigating Harvey Dent, they could have found someone who would have corroborated evidence against him, or found some of his fingerprints on Maroni's car... something, that would have linked him to the various murders. I think in general the Gotham press gave Harvey a pass because of the good he did and the fact that Batman can be used as a scapegoat. If Batman doesn't take the fall, Harvey eventually would have. – Barry Hammer Feb 5 '14 at 11:58

I think that the question "why did a self-sacrificing hero (which the Batman surely is) take the blame instead of framing somebody else?" doesn't make sense.

To ask such a question properly, I think you'd have to make out a feasible alternative plan, taking into the account the current circumstances and the need to rig any evidence to fit Maroni and plenty of his men (no one would believe he did it alone) or whoever else.

Let us not forget that the place of Harvey's death was surrounded by the police force. They saw the Batman getting away, but - apart from him - only Jim Gordon and his family were there. So, how can the blame be put on anyone else (once we accept that the blame has to be put, which I find a bit weak)?

share|improve this answer
So it is feasible to accuse Maroni of owning the Falcone crime family (court sequence in beginning) but not feasible to blame the death of 5 people on him? Regarding "They saw Batman getting away", did not they see him get away during the Joker SWAT encounter in end, so did they blame Batman for that too? It could have been something like "One of Maroni's men killed these 5 people, Batman was helping Gordon and failed to save Dent while the killer escaped". Surely there was no need to blame it on Batman, don't you think? – Cool_Coder Feb 2 '14 at 16:12
Maroni, the way I see it, was the new head of the Falcone crime family, so that was a fair accusation. Besides, there is a difference between "accusing" (in the court of law) and "framing" (as in rigging the evidence to make it look like a person did something we know they didn't do). The whole "the Batman takes the blame" thing was there exactly with the purpose of him taking the blame and I have no problem with the fact that he had to take it. My problem is with the explanation why anyone had to take the blame in the first place (I wrote that in my comments on the topic I've linked). – Vedran Šego Feb 2 '14 at 16:43

It's really one of the main themes of "The Dark Knight." Like Hammer said, Batman and Commissioner Gordon both knew that this had to happen. You may have heard Commissioner Gordon say something like "He's not the hero they want, but he's the hero they need," referring to Harvey Dent.

In other words, the implication is that the average citizen would want Batman as their "hero." But for the sake of keeping order, the people need to put faith in someone. If they put faith in Batman or Gordon, then they can't cover up Two Face. If they don't cover up Two Face, then like the two above me have said, the city will corrupt. This was described by Hammer and Sego.

So the only remaining option is to let Harvey Dent still be their hero. Batman is selfless as their true hero, so he's willing to take the blame. But he and Gordon can't let people know that because that is no longer an option. Make sense?

Batman is a better option to take the blame than Gordon because Batman is such a strong character by comparison that he's able to take in all of that pain to help his city.

So, Batman is the "hero they want" in the sense that the people WANT to put faith in Batman. But Harvey's symbolism as a hero in the city will help keep order. It's who the people need to put faith in.

share|improve this answer
My point is why blame it on Batman at all when you very easily make a scapegoat out of (maybe) Maroni himself, or even Joker because people already know he is insane and has publicly accepted blowing a hospital??? – Cool_Coder Feb 4 '14 at 16:14
Joker has already been taken into custody and so it would be hard to blame it on him because it would be harder and less realistic for that to happen from jail. Maroni is possible, as he's a mob boss. But if they did that, it wouldn't follow batman's code because, although batman is a dark hero, he doesn't believe in blaming people for things he didn't do. But he knows SOMEONE has to take the blame, so he does the selfless thing. He takes it himself. He doesn't want to blame it on someone just for being the "bad guy." It Batman's act of heroism. – user3251611 Feb 4 '14 at 20:10

First of all, who were these five people Dent is said to have killed? We see him shoot Wurtz (he doesn't kill Ramirez) and Maroni's driver. At the end of Dark Knight only Gordon and Batman know what Dent has done, so technically they could say anything and still keep Dent's reputation clean. Also, it's not like Dent is a functioning district attorney, expected to show up at work on Monday, by the time he's in the hospital. Mayors can and do step-in to appoint new DAs (like police commissioners) if the old one is hurt or killed.

To me the plot hole is: Why would the public turn against Dent in the first place? Are we really suppose to believe that after the Joker's huge body count and highly-public attempts to take over Gotham that the public is going to look at their maimed-for-life ex-DA and decide to throw him under the bus?

Regardless of what the Mayor says earlier about "it's all on you" if something happens, there's clearly mitigating circumstances to show that the actions of Two-Face have no connection on the various legal decisions made by Harvey Dent prior to him going insane through grief, pain and losing half his face.

share|improve this answer
I can't see how this tries to answer the actual question, though. – Napoleon Wilson Aug 27 '15 at 0:36

Batman had captured the Joker. So Harvey's death couldn't be blamed on him.The timeline wouldn't work. Others would talk that Harvey had turned bad. Batman was seen at the crime scene hobbling away as the police dogs went after him and he got on the Pod and took off.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


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.