So I saw it twice in the US and went to see it in Japan last night.
Each time I manage to pick up new and interesting details that either tie the movie itself together into an even tighter bundle or give it even stronger continuity with the previous film.
But here's the thing. Batman, he uh…..he won't kill right? Meaning, he won't let someone die as a direct result of an OFFENSE manuever originating from him.
ie. "I won't kill you but I don't have to save you."
Okay, all well and good. That's the Batman we all know and love. And we also spent the majority of the film, nay, the entirety of the film, based on that principle. Yes, there is a deeper meaning of the chaos VS order and the backdrop of the city as a character itself, but let's face it, Joker did half the shit he did purely because he wanted Batman to off someone.
Then....could someone please explain, because I've rolled it over in my head so many times now without an answer, how anyone can possibly conceive that he didn't kill Harvey in the end?
One might contend that it fits his ultimatum from Begins that I mentioned above, and it may seem that way since he saved the boy instead of Dent, but....it remains that he's the one who tackled him and sent him flying over the edge there. With Ra's you can easily point out that Ra's entered that train of his own free will, and even more cleverly, Batman had no intention of interrupting the train's course since if you want to get technical, Gordon laid the groundwork for that despite it being Batman's idea, Batman may never have intended it to get to that point.
Anyway, this is all very cyclic but I still can't find any explanation that would suggest Harvey wasn't killed by a direct result of Batman's actions.
Takers?