The Joker's Anarchy

The Joker's Anarchy

Following an ongoing debate, does the Joker embody a true anarchist agenda?

Editorial Opinion
By TheUnknown - Dec 14, 2008 12:12 AM EST
Filed Under: Batman

“Introduce a little anarchy. Upset the established order and everything becomes chaos.” One of Joker’s most memorable lines in The Dark Knight is about his anarchist perception. The Joker ultimately wanted to create a form of chaos in Gotham City, now the question is whether the Joker was actually an anarchist or more of a nihilist.

“Pure anarchy of someone who wants to do harm purely for its own sake and for his own entertainment” stated Nolan in an interview to describe the Joker. The Dark Knight’s Joker was intended to hold an anarchist ideology, but would it be better to call him a nihilist to Batman’s order?

There are roughly a couple of standard definitions for anarchy, it spans from meaning lawless absent government to a society free from authority. Nihilism is more of philosophical ethical perception, roughly meaning and extreme skepticism and rejection of moral principles. Is there a correlation between the ideological anarchy and concept of “chaos”? Some self-proclaimed anarchists have stated that anarchy does not include chaos, but simply the lack of authority or government. It’s just the common democratic ideal that a society without government causes chaos.



The Joker was a man without principles or regulations, clearly without laws, but he did have elaborate plans that had to work in specific manners. In his comic book counterpart, the Joker is pretty much insane. There is no logic or reason to his actions; he just does things, usually without any general direction. Jack Nicholson’s Joker in Batman was more of a stone-cold killer with direction to a goal, similar to Ledger’s but was more criminally-driven.

Insanity does not necessarily relate to anarchy or chaos, marking the major difference from all Jokers (Romero’s, Nicholson’s, Hamill’s, or Ledger’s). He has always been the clown prince of “crime”, not destruction of order. His insanity has and will always be incomprehensible, even by Batman.

Romero was more of literal joker, a jokester. Nicholson’s was more a narcissistic gangster. Hamill’s Joker (my personal favorite) embodies a criminal agenda motivated by his lack of guilt. There are debates on whether the Dark Knight’s Joker is a whole new different joker. How did you interpret his motives? Was he really aiming for anarchy (the rejection or law) or nihilism (rejection of values and beliefs) or something completely different?

Whether or not the Joker is an anarchist or nihilist, another question rises. If he wishes to destroy order and/or authority, and if he is the opposite of Batman, does that make Batman an authoritative fascist?
BANE And DEATHSTROKE Live-Action Movie In Development At DC Studios
Related:

BANE And DEATHSTROKE Live-Action Movie In Development At DC Studios

Hayden Christensen Responds To BATMAN Rumors And Explains Why Darth Vader Would Beat Thanos
Recommended For You:

Hayden Christensen Responds To BATMAN Rumors And Explains Why Darth Vader Would Beat Thanos

DISCLAIMER: As a user generated site and platform, ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and "Safe Harbor" provisions.

This post was submitted by a user who has agreed to our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. ComicBookMovie.com will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please CONTACT US for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. CLICK HERE to learn more about our copyright and trademark policies.

Note that ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

ryanallen
ryanallen - 12/14/2008, 5:49 PM
I wouldn't say that the Joker is the complete opposite of Batman, I would say that he just has a different approach to cope with the pains of life, but I think they are very much alike. Although Batman may be trying to restore order to Gotham whereas the Joker has an insanely blithe disregard for the mores of society and does whatever he wants, they have both suffered significant losses in their lives; with Batman, his parents, with the Joker, his wife and kids; Batman tries to set things right, the Joker just doesn't care anymore.
zinext
zinext - 12/15/2008, 5:58 PM
The joker is a criminal mastermind that lives life for his own entertainment, the line that alfred said,"some men just wanna watch the world burn", that was the most accurate way to describe him, he dosnt have a past, he lies bout everthing, he is to complex to give him a specific pyscology for him.
HR
HR - 12/15/2008, 8:47 PM
Anarchy wouldn't be the word to describe the joker. In the movie alot of that planing takes time and perfect execution, you can't just go around doing things and have it all go smooth like butter. Plus he did have a agenda of some sort. I hate to say this word because it may seem a bit trendy to say at these time but he was more like a terrorist. cause through out the movie what did he do most of the time?... terrorized the people of gotham city. And he was alot more like a criminal master mind if you through in the way he robbed banks and robbed from the mob. so anarchist...nope.
warpath15
warpath15 - 12/16/2008, 9:00 AM
“Introduce a little anarchy. Upset the established order and everything becomes chaos.”

A true anarchist does not believe that anarchy brings chaos. A true anarchist believes that anarchy brings justice, order, and liberty. So that statement reveals that Joker is not an anarchist. Joker doesn't want to bring down the establishment because he believes that the absence of government is the most just or the most protective of his liberty. He wants to bring down the establishment because he knows that anarchy is an incredibly oppressive form of government (and yes anarcy is a form of government... just as atheism is a form of religion), under which the strong factions push the weak factions around. Joker would qualify as a strong faction and he could take and do what he wants in the midst of the chaos. Perhaps Joker is a nihilist. Perhaps he's an existentialist. A relativist. A communitarian. An egoist. There are a lot of philosophies he might adhere to. I think the most likely is that he is just a sociopath and he probably doesn't give much thought to the philosophy behind his sick glee at causing pain to others.
Coats
Coats - 12/16/2008, 2:14 PM
Right on, warpath15. I think that's the real answer. He's a sociopath, and he's moved from self destruction to the pain of others to cope. He wants to hurt people and as long as he does he can keep laughing. Morrison brought up the philosophy that joker has an advanced perception of the world -i.e. he's a genius and probably somewhat autistic- and because of this open eyed perception and the lack of a chemical in his brain to filter out the static, he copes using the pain of others, quieting his own internal madness, by externalizing it. Basicaly, he's a whack-job.
mrHJK
mrHJK - 12/16/2008, 6:45 PM
"Do I look like a guy with a plan? I'm like a dog chasing cars. I wouldn't know what to do with it if I caught it! I just do things.."

Ledger's Joker made me believe Harley Quinn could exsist- only someone with this messed up a mind could intrigue a docotor so much that she falls in love with him and think the same way.
SirExcalibur
SirExcalibur - 12/17/2008, 8:29 AM
Pointless violence for his own entertainment. I agree with warpath15 as well, he got it. He just does things that keep him laughing. And I know I'm not the only one who laughs every time at the "Pencil Magic Trick" Lol, morbid...but funny:P

That would have been neat to see Harley Quinn in the movies if Heath hadn't of died:( May he RIP.
warpath15
warpath15 - 12/18/2008, 3:21 PM
By the way, I would be much more apt to label Ra's al Gul an anarchist. He clearly wanted to bring down the establishment because he thought it was the right thing to do. Joker wants to bring it down... just cause it's a thing to do.
Zhivago
Zhivago - 1/16/2009, 1:30 PM
Warpath15 is part right, anarchism is a form of government (unlike atheism, which is a lack of belief in religion). The circle around the A in anarchist symbology is actually a letter 'O', which stands for 'Order out of Anarchy', which is just the opposite of what the Joker wants. Even in anarchist societies there are laws, not written laws but social norms that are enforced by social peer pressure, unlike laws of governments that are enforced by violence.
SkiMe
SkiMe - 2/3/2009, 11:34 PM
I don't know, having an anarchist agenda would be some what of an oxymoron. I mean if your a true anarchist then you would'nt have an agenda would you? Perplexing maybe even for the riddler hint hint. Maybe if we look at the origin for the Joker in the comics an anwser might be found there. There is no doubt that the charater in the movie "The Man Who Laughs" was the insperation for the joker http://forbiddenplanet.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/Conrad%20Veidt,%20from%20The%20Man%20Who%20Laughs.jpg
in the comics. But was the visual the only thing that was taken or is there more? Victor Hugo wrote the book but the movie adeptation is different. I don't think that a charater like the Joker can be fully understood because he is so unpredictable.
Ryden
Ryden - 5/30/2010, 12:20 PM
Actually Joker really isn't a true anarchist...he's much more a sadist in personality, politically I don;t really think he has any stance. Anarchy simply means no goverment, total freedom, this doesn;t nessasarily mean chaos although because it is more likley if that were to happen then it is commonly associated with anarchy. Joker percieves life as insignificant, including his own which is why he could care less if is killed and even eggs Batman on to do so. Reason being he sees the Universe, the massive scope of ti all and basically thinks "we're nothing....so why try?" which is why he causes as much disruption chaos and "freedom" as possible...he just feels life is too short so do whatever you want.

@warpath- I would have to disagree with you there on Athiesm...Athiesm is not a religion because religion is based around worhsip and a set of standard rules to live by and so forth..being an athiest simply means you lack a belief in God. This is no form of religion. As the metaphor goes "Athiesm is a religion like not-collecting stamps is a hobby" and it's true.

Every athiest has different opinions on practically everything, where as a Chruistian or a muslim or a hindu or whatever follow a certain code or text...the only thign athiests share in common is a lack of belief in God. One might believe in fairies and wizards and still be an athiest.
View Recorder