Two Face's story in The Dark Knight feels incomplete & shoul

The 2012 superhero epic about Batman's struggle to overcome the terrorist leader Bane, as well as his own inner demons.
Posts: 18
Joined: March 2009
Mods, please feel free to delete my previous topic on Two Face. It wasn't getting the right message across.

1.) Yes I know some believe that Two Face is dead. Even if he is indeed dead, that doesn't mean that Nolan couldn't atleast delve into Two Face's back story more. The mob could get his old history of previous psychiatric problems revealed and use them as leverage to get all the people he convicted released.

Thus, Two Face's actions in the second movie would have had an actual consequence and his name would atleast be known throughout Gotham. It's sad that such a major Batman villian barely made an impact on anything at all and Gotham doesn't even know that he existed. It would also fill in the one big plot hole in The Dark Knight, in that Two Face wasn't really shown to have any mental issues in the past. Without such a history, Harvey Dent's sudden transition into a super villian that doesn't care about who he hurts just because one person died, doesn't make any sense. Normal people don't suddenly develop a split personality and go a killing spree just because a person died. Issues like that never just pop up in a person's 40s. Only people with previous history of schizophrenia at a younger age get multiple personalities and such later on.

But I honestly don't think he's dead. I've followed comic books enough to know that such a glossed over death is meaningless. They didn't show the body for a reason. The mob has several people in the police department. And the Mob had every reason to let people think he died and use him later to get all of his convictions thrown out. And a major villian like Two Face doesn't die after just killing 4 mobsters then falling off a short building (a fall that didn't even phase batman). Two Face is the second biggest and most notorious Batman villian. He deserves a little more than 20 minutes in one movie. He is not the kind of villain that should be killed off permanently within one movie, a movie where he isn’t even the feature villain. In addition, Two Face should be a notorious name throughout Gotham. The way The Dark Knight ended, Gotham didn’t even know that two face existed. Whether or not Two Face died is very purposefully ambiguous. He simply fell off a building, Batman didn't check his pulse. And he had a closed casket funeral. Given the corruption rampant through Gotham, and the interest that the Mob now has in getting Dent's convictions thrown out of court, it's quite possible that the Mob smuggled Two Face possibly in order to torture him or to use him to get the convictions thrown out.

2.) The psyche of Two face doesn’t make sense in The Dark Knight. A loved one dying is not enough to cause a normal person to become a villain. Only a person with a history of schizophrenia or other prexisting psychiatric problems would have the kind of sudden stark transition that Two Face had in The Dark Knight. In the comics, Two Face’s breakdown makes more sense. Two Face had a history of psychiatric issues before he became two face. The trauma simply reinforced preexisting pathos. This is realistic. A perfectly sane person doesn’t become insane suddenly. Tons of people lose loved ones. And the only ones that go on killing rampages or seek vengeance are those with preexisting issues. And psychiatric issues such as those are confidential, protected by physician patient confidentiality, even if the person enters law enforcement, the doctor has no obligation to break this confidentiality and the patient has no obligation to reveal them himself. Having Two Face reemerge in the third movie provides an opportunity to have this plot hole filled, and confirm that indeed, two face had psychiatric problems in the past. This could even lead to the release of all those he prosecuted, throwing Gotham into chaos and giving Batman the opportunity to earn his redemption.

3.) Each Batman movie has at least two villains, usually more. Batman Begins had three major villains. The Dark Knight likewise had three villains (Scarecrow made a return). Just because Two Face makes a return in Batman 3 doesn’t mean that he would be only villain. I would love to see him alongside Bane or possibly The Riddler.

4.) Aaron Eckhart is an excellent actor, was well cast and made an excellent Two Face. Unfortunately, he, like everyone else in the movie, was overshadowed by Heath Ledger’s excellent performance. It would be welcome to have the actor and character return for another film.

Posts: 2281
Joined: July 2009
Location: Ontario, Canada
Image

Posts: 13622
Joined: June 2009
Location: Florida
Harvey/Two Face is dead. Dead. Kicked the bucket. Bit the dust. Bought the farm. Cashed in his chips. Croaked. Off the twig. Six feet under. Wandering the Elysian Fields. Belly up. Checked out. Worm food. Kaput. Decease. Defunct. Pushing daisies.

Image

Posts: 18
Joined: March 2009
Please read the thread.

I specifically state, that even if he is dead, that doesn't mean that his past psych problems couldn't be explored some more and used to get the mobsters he convicted released.

This serves multiple purposes...

1. It means Two Faces actions in the TDK have an actual lasting consequence. Plus the name Two Face would atleast be known in Gotham which is a pretty basic requirement for a villian as major as two face.

2. It clears Batman's name and gives him an opportunity to earn his redemption. They can't have Batman 3 end with the people of Gotham still thinking it was Batman who killed those people. Batman should be inspiring people by the end of the trilogy, not seen as a murderer.

3. IMO, most importantly, it plugs up the main plothole in TDK, the stark rapid rushed transition from Harvey Dent, sane and stable man, to Two Face psychopath that doesn't care about who he hurts. Such a transition only makes sense in people who already had preexisting psychiatric problems. Harvey Dent in the comic books did. The Harvey Dent in TDK did not.

Posts: 2281
Joined: July 2009
Location: Ontario, Canada
Maybe you should read your own thread.

Your appeal to the logic of comic books is laughable in the very least. Comic books are the most chaotic, contradictory and confusing form of literature known to man. What happened in a comic is meaningless and has no bearing on the film.

You also seem to have minimal understanding of psychology. Any credible psychologist will tell you that there's no such thing as an absolute in human behaviour. A person's behaviour is the least predictable thing in the world.

And there's no plothole. Harvey was shown to have tendencies which conflicted with his White Knight persona throughout the film. Using a double-sided coin, advocating authoritarian ideals in replacement of democracy, threatening to kill a mentally-ill man, relying on a vigilante for aid. Harvey doesn't believe in his own system, that's why he gives in.

Now, please brush up your logic before you embarass yourself any further.

Posts: 13622
Joined: June 2009
Location: Florida
I did. He's dead. End of story. No need to tack on pointless information that serves no purpose.

1. What Two Face specifically did doesn't matter, he isn't supposed to be a major villain. All he was was proof that a man can be corrupted while Batman, a symbol, cannot (which ties into Batman Begin's purpose).
2. Batman took the blame for Harvey Dent's crime so that Gotham doesn't loose hope in their politicians. He doesn't want to clear his name, he took the blame for a purpose.
3. There are hints of odd psychological tendencies in Harvey Dent, about 3 times in the movie where you can tell he's a bit unbalanced. Jealousy of Rachel's ex-boyfriend. Attacking a person with a gun and then joking about it seconds later. Putting a gun to someone's head.

But most importantly:

Image

Oh, and what Eternalist said. Especially the point about the comic books.

Posts: 18
Joined: March 2009
"You also seem to have minimal understanding of psychology."

:lol: I did a double major in psychology. I also did my thesis on psychosis and psychopaths. Ask anyone who has researched psychopaths in the past. And they will agree that the portrayl of Harvey Dent makes zero sense. Remember, Dent was willing to kill a child for no real reason.

Sane people have a rigid moral core. No, threatening a person or being jealous doesnt mean they don't have a moral core. And that moral core doesn't go away just because a person they love dies. If a person doesn't have a moral core, they will show serious evidence of psychiatric issues well before their 20s. They are never going to suddenly show up in their 40s.

Tens of thousands of people lose loved ones every year. The only ones that go on killing sprees are those who already have a history of psychiatric issues. Thus, Harvey Dent being a completely normal functioning 40 year old man with no history of psychiatric problems at all in the past one moment, and becoming a psychopath who doens't care about who gets hurt, and doesn't even care about killing a child, is not a sensible transition.
Last edited by wikoogle on April 2nd, 2010, 12:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

Posts: 13622
Joined: June 2009
Location: Florida
Sane people have a rigid moral core. And it doesn't go away just because a person they love dies.
And there's no plothole. Harvey was shown to have tendencies which conflicted with his White Knight persona throughout the film. Using a double-sided coin, advocating authoritarian ideals in replacement of democracy, threatening to kill a mentally-ill man, relying on a vigilante for aid. Harvey doesn't believe in his own system, that's why he gives in.
All of these before the death of Rachel.

Posts: 18
Joined: March 2009
Are you really arguing that being jealous of an ex, or threating someone, or rooting for Batman, is evidence that a person is insane?

No, not having a moral core means being willing to killing people randomly, arbitrarily, even children. That's not the kind of transition that someone jumps to just because a loved one dies. It's the kind of transition that a person makes only if they had a mental illness that predated the trauma.

Posts: 2281
Joined: July 2009
Location: Ontario, Canada
wikoogle wrote:"You also seem to have minimal understanding of psychology."

:lol: I did a double major in psychology. I also did my thesis on psychosis and psychopaths. Ask anyone who has researched psychopaths in the past. And they will agree that the portrayl of Harvey Dent makes zero sense.

Sane people have a rigid moral core. And it doesn't go away just because a person they love dies. If a person doesn't have a moral core, they will show serious evidence of psychiatric issues well before their 20s. They are never going to suddenly show up in their 40s.

Tens of thousands of people lose loved ones every year. The only ones that go on killing sprees are those who already have a history of psychiatric issues. Thus, Harvey Dent being a completely normal functioning 40 year old man with no history of psychiatric problems at all in the past one moment, and becoming a psychopath who doens't care about who gets hurt, and doesn't even care about killing a child, is not a sensible transition.
You're an extremely poor psychologist then, no psychologist would say that "only" certain people do this or that. That's fallicious and untrue. And according to your own criteria Harvey does show psychosis as demonstrated by the examples placed in the movie. Don't try and place the film too much in the real world as it only aims for a semblance of reality. Applying these rigid deterministic concepts doesn't work for a film based on an abstraction of reality.

Locked