The Joker, Harvey Dent, and Anton Chigurh: a thread on villainy, chaos, and fate

Before I start the thread, I want to clarify that I will only be discussing the film versions of these characters, specifically surrounding the way in which they operate and reject conventional morality. Will contain spoilers for The Dark Knight and No Country for Old Men

When the Joker is introduced, he is immediately displayed not only showing disregard for others lives (killing the men he hired for a job), but also his own life. He inserted himself into a dangerous situation, and acts as though it’s a game, even while being held at gunpoint.

This foreshadows what we slowly come to learn about the Joker: simply put, he wants to watch the world burn, a world which he is a part of. He exists merely to insight chaos, even at his own risk, as it’s all just a game to him.

The Joker exists as a complete form of chaos, for which we can use as a a base from which we can measure other, more “controlled” forms of chaos. Joker simply wants to unravel society and those around him, revealing the front of moral consistency and stability that many maintain.

He perfectly describes the meaning behind all of his actions when he states, “I just do.” The joker’s outlook is entirely nihilistic, and it’s from this nihilism that the this iconic agent of chaos is born.

Dent and Chigurh also serve as chaos factors in their own stories, but in a different manner than the joker. Rather than a chaos that’s wild and uncontrolled, they embody the unpredictable and chaotic nature of fate, particularly when there are two possible outcomes.

Dent operates from a sense of revenge; more specifically, a vengeance on those who were not forced into the same circumstance as him by destiny. He operates from a bitter worldview, acting as an agent of fate to enact his reformed, warped sense of justice.

He desires “fairness”, wanting everyone to experience, at the very least, the fear and uncertainty he felt when he lost everything. The world is unfair, and Dent strives to correct this inequality, ensuring that those he feels responsible are faced with the circumstances he was.

He is an agent of fate, but not in the fatalistic tool that Chigurh is; he’s actually the complete opposite. Dent serves to correct fate, changing the courses of people’s lives so that fairness can be restored.

Yet, the universe makes the ultimate choice between the two given possibilities, as it did with him and Rachel. The decision is left to someone else, Harvey merely creates the scenario in which fate obligated to make its choice.

Anton Chigurh, conversely, does not base his morality on a twisted sense of justice. Rather, he values utility, brevity, and effectiveness. Much of his philosophy he sums up himself, “If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?”

There is no attempt to correct justice; he takes his deterministic standpoint to its ultimate conclusion, and shows it via his iconic coin flip. For him, death is an ever present possibility, one people are constantly at the mercy of, but live as if they’re unaware of this.

Similar to joker welcoming the results of his own chaos, Chigurh also is forced to accept the cards that he is dealt by fate. He sees himself as no different than his coin, an inanimate object. They both exist, mere devices to be manipulated and used by the universe.

He arrived and moved the same was as his coin: through the decisions and allowances of fate. He laughs at the idea of resisting fate, and what he perceives to be a lack of understanding from those who beg him for their lives.

Fate cannot be stopped, nor can I’d be refused. Anton’s actions show that one can try to resist fate, but as we see with Moss’ wife, this is a futile effort that will ultimately end in destiny achieving what it was always going to achieve.

These characters display to us unconventional morality surrounding structure, justice, and fate.

As good antagonists should, they ultimately highlight their stories’ protagonists and their beliefs, setting up these movies to be clashes of ideals, whether it be subtly as in NCfOM, or the more evident thematic presentation of TDK