Joker's Death: Edited vs. original

[virtual_alfred]

One more thing... personally, I don't think the edits were such a big deal. In some ways, I think one of the most critical scenes was improved by the edit. It changed the plot a lot, and I prefer the edited version of the plot in which the hero does not cross the line.

Pulling this thread out of the "What are the two ROTJ deleted scenes" thread. The subject is being resurrected elsewhere, and the topic may be in danger of being lost in another thread.

[Clayface]

Originally posted by doctorcrime
are these the deleted scenes available on the dvd or are these the censored scenes unavailable for the time being. i heard the censored scenes (SPOILER) contained a slightly different death of the joker in arkham that did not sit well with the warners in the post columbine hysteria days.

A lot of the edits weren't a really big deal, but the main flashback scene is COMPLETELY different, and is, in almost everyone's opinion, better in the unedited version than the one in the edited/officially released version.

[DarkAngel]

Originally posted by virtual_alfred
It changed the plot a lot, and I prefer the edited version of the plot in which the hero does not cross the line.

Given the circumstances, I don't think anyone crossed the line.

[virtual_alfred]

I don't think the circumstances have anything to do with it being okay to cross the line, for a superhero. It's pretty easy, as a matter of fact, to not cross the line when your life isn't on the line every day. The fact that Batman (and family) are in such intense danger each episode, and yet they refuse to stoop to the same level of their enemies is what makes them heroes in my book.

In another book, of course, they'd be the Punisher or the Huntress. To each his own. There's nothing wrong with liking superheroes who don't hold back. But for me, especially with the animated series, the point was that Batman was not a campy goody two-shoes and not a dark obsessed maniac with a death wish. He was somewhere in between, but always acutely aware of that fine line between hero and vigilante. In fact, this was the kick-off point for Rebirth.

(Alfred starts a pot of tea. "I expect, Master Bruce, that after my last post we'll have lots of visitors".)

[virtual_alfred]

Add the Phantasm to that list.

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by virtual_alfred
I don't think the circumstances have anything to do with it being okay to cross the line, for a superhero. It's pretty easy, as a matter of fact, to not cross the line when your life isn't on the line every day. The fact that Batman (and family) are in such intense danger each episode, and yet they refuse to stoop to the same level of their enemies is what makes them heroes in my book.

(Alfred starts a pot of tea. "I expect, Master Bruce, that after my last post we'll have lots of visitors".)

Hehe.

Well, my argument (developed more in depth at my site in the essay "Killing the Joker" (plug! plug!)) is that "crossing the line" was precisely the point of the flashback. Tim Drake crossed a line, and was morally ruined by it; in killing the Joker he took on the Joker's spirit (in more than one way, as it turned out). And since the exorcism of that spirit is the entire mainspring to the film, to change that part of the film is to break its theme. That is why it is no small change to alter how the Joker dies.

One can dislike the fact that they gave Drake such an evil fate, and regret the story that results. I would only insist on recognizing how integral that fate is to the story.

[Kitty Pryde]

Im not fond of the flashback scene thats un-edited for the sole reason i thought it was kind of good in the edited version how the joker eventually made a joke of himself unlike what happened in the un-edited version, i also dont like how the hero crossed the line but could understand given the situation.

all in all its a great movie edited / unedited / uncut makes no difference to me

[DarkAngel]

Originally posted by Maxie Zeus

Well, my argument (developed more in depth at my site in the essay "Killing the Joker" (plug! plug!)) is that "crossing the line" was precisely the point of the flashback. Tim Drake crossed a line, and was morally ruined by it; in killing the Joker he took on the Joker's spirit (in more than one way, as it turned out).

But Drake was not in his right mind. That's why I said the circumstances need to be considered. Looking at Tim throughout that flashback, it's clear the kid was off his rocker.

Barbara told Terry it took Leslie about "a year to help Tim back to sanity." Those were the exact words used. So doesn't that make a difference? I don't see how one can say Tim crossed the line given his mental stability at the time.

[virtual_alfred]

Those are both pretty good arguments. I'll have to rethink and rewatch ROTJ in that light.

Off his rocker still means Tim was ruined as a hero.

[DarkAngel]

Originally posted by virtual_alfred
Those are both pretty good arguments. I'll have to rethink and rewatch ROTJ in that light.

Off his rocker still means Tim was ruined as a hero.

Tim was definitely changed, but not due to anything he did. That's squarely on Joker's shoulders, an act in which the clown prince of crime definitely crossed the line.

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by DarkAngel


But Drake was not in his right mind. That's why I said the circumstances need to be considered. Looking at Tim throughout that flashback, it's clear the kid was off his rocker.

Barbara told Terry it took Leslie about "a year to help Tim back to sanity." Those were the exact words used. So doesn't that make a difference? I don't see how one can say Tim crossed the line given his mental stability at the time.

You're right of course that Tim was not culpable for his actions, and no one would hold him responsible for the Joker's death. But he did something no member of the Bat-team is ever supposed to do: he killed someone.

It's a very subtle point to try to make: Tim is not responsible for his action, and can hardly be said to have consciously "crossed the line." Moreover, his action stems from the torture he suffered. Nevertheless, a line was crossed. Tim was ruined by the Joker, and one of the ways that ruin is expressed is by showing that the Joker had driven Tim over a line he could never have previously crossed.

If the Joker dies accidentally, then the most that can be said is that he broke Tim's body and mind. If Tim kills the Joker, then we can say in truth that he broke Tim's spirit.

[James Harvey]

I don't hold Tim responsible for these actions. He didn't even answer to "Tim" or "Robin" when Barbara called to him. All he did was laugh (eerily) and do as he was brainwashed to do. I think the Joker's death lays in his own hands. Joker brainwashed the kid. The Joker gave him the gun. The Joker made him pull the trigger. In a way, the Joker killed himself. This is a really interesting dilemma, though. Who is to blame...

Personnally, I say "Joker".

[DarkAngel]

Originally posted by Dick Grayson
Personnally, I say "Joker".

That's how I feel. As subtle as it might be, saying "Tim crossed a line" does put the blame on him. That tells us that a hero crossed a line he shouldn't have. That's really not accurate. Tim sanity is in question during those events, and so I don't feel one can say Tim is responsible in any sense.

Like DG has said, Joker was behind it all. He brutalized Tim, and in doing so, he, Joker crossed a line.

Or maybe not. I don't know. Maxie, you might be right about the slight difference between being culpable and crossing a line. I'm looking at your post again, and....I don't know.

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by DarkAngel
Or maybe not. I don't know. Maxie, you might be right about the slight difference between being culpable and crossing a line. I'm looking at your post again, and....I don't know.

Maybe this will help clarify my meaning:

Think, in real life, of when a parent says to the kid: "Didn't I ask you to clean my room?" Literally, the parent is asking a question, to which the proper answer would be "Yes" or "No." But the parent is expressing anger, impatience, and the desire and/or command that the kid get up and go clean the room.

Similarly, in art there is a difference between the literal content of a scene and what it expresses. If the events of ROTJ had happened in real life there would be no question about Tim's guilt, or about who is actually responsible for it all (I agree, morally the Joker is entirely responsible.) And the scene also functions as the expression of certain moral observations. The Joker has ruined Tim, physically and psychologically, obviously, but also morally. It is a cardinal rule of the Batman ethos that you don't kill, no matter the provocation, and the fact that Tim has been so crushed that he violates that rule (even if it is unwittingly and unconsciously--he seems not to remember doing it) shows just how far he has been pushed. And to excise that scene is to draw back from showing just how completely Tim has been broken.

[James]

And the moral of the story folks?

Don't argue with a guy who has written a frikkin essay on the subject...

In all seriousness (or as serious as I can get), I agree with Maxie. The status quo in the Bat Camp had always, until then, been maintained until this event. We are to assume (as the dialogue points a hefty and rather chubby finger in this direction), that this was all the final straw and the 'family' collapsed.

To me, this suggests that from historical evidence, the Bat Nucleus stayed together until some event tore it's foundations apart. The death of the Joker and more importantly, the proceedings of the said event are nexus from which everything changed.

A life had been taken. With no life being previously extinguished by any of the Bat Goons, we can see that this event seperates what was (eg: The Bat Group) to what became (eg: NO Bat Group).

Sorry for going over old ground, but i'm trying to illustrate that point that the very event is clearly a line that seperates what was to what was to be. The event itself becomes the line, the line that Tim crossed unwittingly or not, and thus destroyed the mantle.

In which case, I think we have to assume that this was murder with intent and not just madness. That Tim had been pushed so far, that the ethos of Batman had dwindled to nothing. He had broken away from the Joker's control which implies some measure of self control. If he had the power to control his manic and insane actions then, it's likely that his next actions were very much of Tims intent.
I'm not saying that morally he was at fault, but I get the impression that from the scene, there is a bit of Tim there which has taken that choice. Which is why it sits so heavily with the rest of group. The fragile nature of their business becomes all the more apparent. Not just the danger to Bruce's children, but the potential damage it can cause them and through that other people. Even wicked people like the Joker....

That is the line that was crossed... IMO....

[Maxie Zeus]

SJJ puts it very nicely.

I might add to the claim by citing Tolkien. Those who have read LotR remember that (well, with the movies coming up, maybe I should put it in spoilers)

Spoiler:

On Mt. Doom, Frodo refuses to cast away the Ring, and decisively and willingly claims it as his own. And yet after he has been robbed of it and the Ring destroyed, he is honored by Gandalf and the rest for his success.

A woman wrote in to Tolkien complaining that Frodo did not deserve this honor--that in fact he was a traitor. Tolkien responded with a discussion of the line in the Lord's Prayer about "lead us not into temptation." The idea is that one can be morally crippled in just the way that one can be physically crippled; a burden can be placed on us so great that we lose our ability to function properly. It is a moral failing that Frodo suffers because it is something he does willingly; and yet in a very real sense he failed because he had been asked to do something too difficult.

Tolkien explicitly compared it to a physical failing: If I cannot pick up a heavy weight, it remains that I have failed to pick it up, but it is also true that my blameworthiness does not extend very far. Similarly, some demands placed on us can be beyond our moral abilities: The temptation to surrender to the easy expedience (as Frodo did in LotR, and as Tim did in RotJ) is too great. It remains a moral failing, and yet one that is not blameworthy.

That is why one can say that Tim is not to blamed or held responsible for his actions, and yet understand that something vital in him broke; in fact, it is because something in him broke that he cannot be held responsible.

[DarkAngel]

Originally posted by Maxie Zeus
That is why one can say that Tim is not to blamed or held responsible for his actions, and yet understand that something vital in him broke; in fact, it is because something in him broke that he cannot be held responsible.

This is where I'm getting confused. If Tim is not responsible, can we say that he crossed the line? Doesn't "crossing the line" imply responsibility?

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by DarkAngel


This is where I'm getting confused. If Tim is not responsible, can we say that he crossed the line? Doesn't "crossing the line" imply responsibility?

Well, it's possible to cross a state boundary without knowing or intending to do so, right?

Usually when we "cross a line" morally we are quite aware of it and can be held responsible. But Tim, I think, has been so deranged by events that he's not quite aware of what he's doing, or has been overwhelmed by rage and resentment that we cannot reasonably expect him to resist the urge. Think about when someone after extreme provocation just explodes, and we tell him afterward "I don't blame you for what you did." Well, actually we can and do hold them responsible, but because we think the circumstances are exculpatory--he was pushed beyond endurance--that we don't enforce the same degree of judgement against him. He was "responsible" in the sense that he performed some action, but he cannot be held "responsible" in a full moral sense.

[James]

but if we take it as red that Tim crossed the line, and that his actions could not be blamed on himself. What about the intent? Again, not blaming him for his actions and what lead him to his choices, but was the shot that killed the Joker a calculated move?

If Tim was able to fight the Joker's 'programming' and resist killing Bruce, did his following actions come from the heart as well? How much was he deranged, and how much of his actions were pure hatred? After all the pain the Joker had put him through, could Tim's actions be less of a deranged mind and that of blind hatred? Tim is likely to have hated the Joker already simply for standing against everything Tim and Bruce believed in. Surely such torture on a young untrained mind could result in these feelings being intensified?

Again, I agree with Maxie and DA that Tim is not to blame for what happened, but it is interesting..... is this a case of murder or a plea of insanity?

[Maxie Zeus]

I do think we have to carefully distinguish between the moral and the legal here. That may be one way discussion can get vexed.

Let's leave aside the fact that Tim is a minor and pretend that, legally, he could be tried as an adult. The legal judgement would trace the degree to which Tim knew what he was doing: Did he have the capacity to tell right from wrong, and did he have the capacity to understand that his actions were wrong? The fact that he refused to shoot Batman, but did shoot the Joker would probably mean that he did have that capacity, and that an insanity plea would probably fail. He is responsible for his actions.

And yet I cannot imagine a prosecutor choosing to pursue a murder prosecution, or any prosecution. Why not? Because of the extraordinary circumstances. Given what was done to him, and the temptation put into his hand, only one with an iron constitution (or a coward) could have resisted the temptation to kill the Joker. (And if we remember that he is still a boy, it becomes unimaginable.) Any decent prosecutor would refuse to act against Tim because he or she would recognize that Tim was suffering under a nearly crippling impairment.

Prosecutorial discretion here is based not on a legal test (that is why it is discretion; there is no law which tells a prosecutor when to pursue or not to pursue a certain case). Instead it is based upon the recognition that, morally, Tim had been pushed so hard he couldn't resist crossing the line. The only reasonable and compassionate act would be to forgive Tim's action, even while recognizing that he was still responsible for it.

It is this impairment that a prosecutor would (or should) recognize that I am pointing to when I talk about Tim being "morally" crippled. It is an odd sort of concept, because unlike a physical injury it does not absolve him of responsibility. Instead, it's the feeling or sense that humans are fragile beings, and that it is possible to push them to a place where it makes no sense to keep acting on moral principles. The moral principle that killers should be condemned and punished simply lapses when the killer is a victim on the order that Tim is. The temptation to kill was too great, and even though Tim is still responsible and culpable, our sense that his failure was due to the way that he was morally "broken" leads us to suspend the normal rules.

At least, it would lead most of us to so react. The way I read the movie, part of the subsequent tragedy is that Bruce is NOT sufficiently compassionate and humane to have the right reaction. Maybe he fundamentally blames himself, or maybe he still blames Tim. Either way, he is unwilling to reach out to Tim and so the tragedy continues to fester. That is why the chip goes undetected; it is why Tim is still bitter and resentful (and so psychologically prey to the Joker's emerging personality); it is why the story continues forty years later.