Hello, everybody! Firstly, I’d like to say that this article is in no way me stating an opinion of the film/Nolan’s Batman (before anyone gets any crazy ideas.) It’s simply me having a bit of fun with my major and my favorite comic-book hero.
Anyways, I’m currently majoring in Psychology and recently had an assignment which involved applying a theory of personality to a primary movie character/book character. At first, I wasn’t sure who to do it on. I was thinking along the lines of some book characters I know but then thought this would be the best opportunity to exploit my love for Batman. Granted, I’m not the most well-informed person when in comes to comic books. (I’m trying my best to change that, though.) So, I decided to apply a theory of personality to Batman in a film; specifically The Dark Knight. (I know, typical, right? This was an easy A, after all.)
I’m not sure if this has been done before in this website. I know I have read some articles elsewhere in which they have compared Batman to the ego or superego, whereas the Joker would be the id and Harvey Dent would be the ego/superego, depending on the writer. My analysis somewhat differentiates from this pattern, but I’ll get to that soon.
So basically, my assignment was simply to do this in five quick and short points, which didn’t really give me much space to elaborate on my analysis. I’ll try to elaborate more here, I guess, but will keep it short either way for those of you with a short attention span.
Alright, so remember that pattern I mentioned before? Well, mine includes Batman as the superego, like some, and obviously the Joker as the id. Since I was only able to talk about Batman, I pretty much mentioned how he stands for morality, justice and order, in comparison to the superego. (I don’t believe he is an exact superego at all times, though. It can definitely be debated otherwise. Again, easy A!) He is so fixated with these ideals and rules that he refuses to retire from being Batman, making himself responsible for the safety and justice of Gotham. (This idea of acting with others in mind can also relate to post-conventional thinking in which one makes decisions based on principles for the good of humanity.) This can be compared to the superego in the sense that his personality as Batman is mainly regulated by the superego, the “angel” on one shoulder keeping the id in check.
I mentioned that his moral standards made him incapable of killing the Joker, despite all the bad he has done. (A recent article made a point that Batman disregarded his rule of not killing by tackling Harvey over the edge of the building, meaning it could very well debunk the whole idea of him being the voice of reason and justice that he is claimed to be in the film. Honestly, I think it’s a situational thing. In both cases, it was a matter of subduing the villain before they can do any more harm, Harvey with Gordon’s family and the Joker with the civilians and prisoners. Harvey could just as easily have pulled the trigger like the Joker could have detonated the bombs. The difference in the situation, though, is the distance between the Joker and Batman, as opposed to Batman’s proximity to Harvey. Batman was close enough to, luckily, launch the fins(?) of one of his gloves at Joker, immediately removing the detonator from his hands, giving him enough leverage to pull him over once Joker was distracted. The Joker was no longer a threat since the detonator was out of his reach, therefore, there was no need to kill him if he could have done otherwise. The situation with Harvey was different, though. The distance did not allow him to rely on chance when it came to aiming something at him to subdue him. It was a matter of acting, and fast. And any signs of him throwing something would have given him away, anyways, giving Harvey enough time to pull the trigger on the child he was holding. So again, it was a matter of surprise and distraction, once again giving him leverage to push the villain over a building once more. Only this time there were others and distance in between, making it all the more difficult. Which is why he brought the kid down with them too. And in that situation of acting rapidly, without any chance of hesitation, it’s the kid’s safety before Harvey’s, especially while the kid is also dangling from the building. If he could have chosen the outcome himself, though, I bet he would have left Harvey alive. [As for the other deaths said article mentions, well, I don’t know what to say. It’s a matter of considering whether the film will or will not be as real as possible.])
Joker’s purpose was to prove that even the best of them could be corrupted, case in point, Harvey Dent. I suggested that his inability to corrupt Batman, however, proves that Batman is indeed the best of them and not Harvey Dent. (Again, said article points out that he is corrupted once brought to the point of killing Harvey, but I’ve already made my case for that.)
Ok, so pretty much I said Batman was the superego and the Joker was the id. No need to explain further. Where my analysis differentiates, though, is the ego. As I’ve previously mentioned, that title has always alternated from Batman to Harvey. I, on the other hand, believe that the true ego in The Dark Knight is Gotham itself. I think it to be the personification of the ego mainly because it is this entity that tends to go to neither extreme of the spectrum while Joker and Batman battle to tip it over to their end.
Well, that is all I have to say. It was a fun assignment that I thought I should share with you all. (Also, sorry it’s not as short as I promised.)