Question about the ending to The Dark Knight (2008).

Tools    





I saw it again recently and just had a question about the ending so far that I picked up on.

WARNING: "SPOILER" spoilers below
In the end Batman want to take the blame for murdering Harvey as well as other people that Harvey killed, while leaving Harvey's body at the scene, and riding away on his bike.

However, why did Batman have to take the blame at all? With all the crime and chaos going on, couldn't the police have jumped to the conclusion that other people could have killed the mob bosses and cops, and not necessarily Batman of all people?



"Money won is twice as sweet as money earned."



The logic was that, without Batman to blame, they'd figure out that Harvey had gone bad, and this was the only safe way to preserve his reputation. Technically, sure, anyone could have done it, but without Batman effectively taking credit they'd investigate enough to realize (or at least heavily suspect) what happened with him.
__________________



Oh okay, but even if Batman took the blame, wouldn't they still want to investigate anyway, and nothing is going to stop that investigation? In fact, if Batman took the blame wouldn't that make investigators more interested in the case, and then they would more likely find out the truth or any inconsistencies?



There's a lot less investigation into something someone is admitting than there is for a totally inexplicable murder of a public figure.

They'd be "more interested" in the sense of finding Batman, not in the sense of proving he didn't do it. And the public outcry would be immense. Public opinion of him is already mixed and he's already demonstrably acted outside of the law, so he's serving up a far more plausible explanation than what actually happened.



But wouldn't they still investigate to want to prove that Batman did it though? If they find him, and that's all they have, then they have no proof, cause they were only interested in finding him rather than building a case. Wouldn't they want to get actual proof, to make a case, if they did find him?

As for Gordon acting as a witness for Batman murdering Dent, that didn't need to happen either. All Gordon and Batman had to do was get rid of Dent's body so it wouldn't be found, and no one knows what happened to Dent. Maybe he got blown up in the hospital. Maybe Joker killed him in the hospital and left him to blow up. Dent can still remain a hero, and Gordon does not have to explain what Dent's dead body was doing there if him and Batman got rid of it.

Or they could just leave the body there, and lead the public to believe that someone may have killed Dent in all the chaos, but I didn't think it HAD to be Batman.



But wouldn't they still investigate to want to prove that Batman did it though? If they find him, and that's all they have, then they have no proof, cause they were only interested in finding him rather than building a case. Wouldn't they want to get actual proof, to make a case, if they did find him?

As for Gordon acting as a witness for Batman murdering Dent, that didn't need to happen either. All Gordon and Batman had to do was get rid of Dent's body so it wouldn't be found, and no one knows what happened to Dent. Maybe he got blown up in the hospital. Maybe Joker killed him in the hospital and left him to blow up. Dent can still remain a hero, and Gordon does not have to explain what Dent's dead body was doing there if him and Batman got rid of it.

Or they could just leave the body there, and lead the public to believe that someone may have killed Dent in all the chaos, but I didn't think it HAD to be Batman.

Right then...


Gotham needed something to unite the city.
The death of Bruce's parents spurned the city and the wealthy, to act upon crime in Gotham. In the end, it didn't work.


So, upon Dent's arrival in Gotham, Bruce could see he was the right person for the job of ending crime.
Dent made a huge impact on the crime syndicates within the city, he had an impact on the People too. Gotham loved Harvey Dent... but Joker played games with everyone, especially Dent.


Joker twisted Dent into a madman. He injured him, and killed his fiance.
Joker then let his new creation (Two Face) loose on the streets.
Dent killed cops, gangsters, and was going to kill the Commissioner's family, and the Commissioner, and Batman too.


Dent had been broken.


Gotham's "White Knight" was broken.


In the struggle with Dent and Batman, and Commissioner Gordon's son, Dent is killed.

So, instead of allowing the truth come out that Dent was probably clinically mad, Batman stepped in to be the punching bag for Gotham.
Blaming Batman for Dent's crimes, and Commissioner Gordon acting as a witness to Batman murdering Dent, means Gotham has something to unite for.
Their White Knight was dead, they needed something or someone to blame, to unite the People.


Batman is that thing, that someone.
Dent is the hero Gotham needed... Batman is the one Gotham deserves but doesn't know it.


In Dark Knight Rises, all this is explained by Gordon to John Blake.


"There's a point. Far out there. When the structures fail you. When the rules aren't weapons anymore, they're shackles, letting the bad guy get ahead. Maybe one day you'll have such a moment of crisis. And in that moment, I hope you have a friend like I did. To plunge their hands into the filth so you can keep yours clean."

Edit/addition: They also couldn't blame Joker for Dent's death, because Joker was already captured by the time of the Dent/Batman/Gordon fiasco in that construction site.



Oh okay, but how is Gordon going to say it was Batman who killed the other cops, when he wasn't there? If the cops investigate, say the bar murder for example, they will find Dent's prints in the bar, and his saliva on the bar glass, right where the dead body is. So how is this going to lead to Batman in any way?

I mean maybe if Batman were to clean up Dent's physical evidence from the crime scenes, and then go send in a video to the media of him saying he did it, that would work, but we don't see any of this and left to the conclusion that Dent's prints and DNA will be found.



Oh okay, but how is Gordon going to say it was Batman who killed the other cops, when he wasn't there? If the cops investigate, say the bar murder for example, they will find Dent's prints in the bar, and his saliva on the bar glass, right where the dead body is. So how is this going to lead to Batman in any way?

I mean maybe if Batman were to clean up Dent's physical evidence from the crime scenes, and then go send in a video to the media of him saying he did it, that would work, but we don't see any of this and left to the conclusion that Dent's prints and DNA will be found.

Ok, simple answer:
That wasn't what was written in the script.


Sorted.



First, I already answered the "wouldn't there be an investigation either way?" thing by pointing out that it isn't binary: they can investigate more or less depending on what the evidence looks like.

Second, who do you think would be running that investigation? Gordon, the guy who's helping to cover it up. He controls the resources dedicated to it. And if he says "I saw it with my own eyes," that's probably going to be enough to treat it as open-and-shut.

Third, the whole point of the third movie is that they were wrong. Just not for the reasons you're saying. They're wrong because they're not trusting people to do the right thing with tough truths, in direct contrast to Batman trusting the people on the boat. But their thought process is still inherently logical.

Fourth, I don't understand this at all:

All Gordon and Batman had to do was get rid of Dent's body so it wouldn't be found, and no one knows what happened to Dent. Maybe he got blown up in the hospital. Maybe Joker killed him in the hospital and left him to blow up. Dent can still remain a hero, and Gordon does not have to explain what Dent's dead body was doing there if him and Batman got rid of it.
If the District Attorney mysteriously vanishes, they'll have to investigate thoroughly. When tragedy strikes, people demand answers. Giving them one--even a false one--is a lot more likely to put an end to questions than "hey, it could've been anything!"



Oh okay, but how is Gordon going to say it was Batman who killed the other cops, when he wasn't there? If the cops investigate, say the bar murder for example, they will find Dent's prints in the bar, and his saliva on the bar glass, right where the dead body is. So how is this going to lead to Batman in any way?

I mean maybe if Batman were to clean up Dent's physical evidence from the crime scenes, and then go send in a video to the media of him saying he did it, that would work, but we don't see any of this and left to the conclusion that Dent's prints and DNA will be found.
Why would they test for it in the first place? Why would they even be entertaining the idea that their hero snapped and went on a homicidal rampage unless they found an inexplicable mystery that needed to be solved? You're talking about investigating it because you saw it, but there's no reason a character in the movie, who didn't, would think that way.

The characters in the movie didn't see the movie, man.



Why would they test for it in the first place? Why would they even be entertaining the idea that their hero snapped and went on a homicidal rampage unless they found an inexplicable mystery that needed to be solved? You're talking about investigating it because you saw it, but there's no reason a character in the movie, who didn't, would think that way.

The characters in the movie didn't see the movie, man.
But how are the police going to conclude that it Batman committed these murders as well, just because he snapped on Dent? The police do not work that way. They work on physical evidence, not on the assumption that just because one man killed one guy, than he must have killed these others, with no evidence to link them. I thought the police build cases off of evidence, and not assumptions?

Plus if Gordon is the investigator himself, he cannot control everything I don't think, without looking suspicious.

I mean, I understand the reason of Batman's idea, it's just so many things could go wrong you think that I didn't think it would work.



But how are the police going to conclude that it Batman committed these murders as well, just because he snapped on Dent?
Why would they conclude that the violent vigilante, who a decorated cop says killed Dent, also killed other murders surrounding it? Is that a serious question?

The police do not work that way. They work on physical evidence, not on the assumption that just because one man killed one guy, than he must have killed these others, with no evidence to link them.
See above. They don't have "no evidence," and we don't have (or need) a sense of what Gordon is going to specifically claim or help support.

Plus if Gordon is the investigator himself, he cannot control everything I don't think, without looking suspicious.
He doesn't have to "control everything" to steer them towards a conclusion or reallocate resources, and no, it won't look suspicious when his explanation is already way more plausible than what actually happened.

And, again: they were wrong. The truth does come out.



I just want to hug (your FACE)!
@Yoda 's monster.

Yeah. Batman more or less confessing and running away plus Gordon's eyewitness testimony makes for an open-and-shut case here. Who would insist on investigating further when they have what they need to prosecute? The D.A. needs a scapegoat and to move past all this chaos quickly. Maybe his defense lawyer would insist on an investigation but Batman is MIA and not been arrested so a defense doesn't exist yet anyway. Never will. He's Batman.



Oh okay, I thought that they set up Gotham city as cops and mobsters being murdered all the time, that murder was so common that therefore, no scapegoat would be needed, cause everyone's doing it as the saying goes.