Did Murray Deserve to Die in 'The Joker'? A Deeper Look at the Narrative and Morality

Back in 2019, the film 'The Joker' was a critical and commercial success, featuring the legendary Arthur Fleck/Mr. J. Delving into the complexities of Murray Chandler's character, a pivotal question emerges: did Murray deserve the fate that befell him? This analysis explores the nuances of the narrative and societal implications.

Understanding Murray Chandler

At the onset, Murray Chandler is portrayed as a respected and financially stable businessman. His initial interactions with Arthur Fleck highlight a more considerate and respectful attitude. Murray greets Arthur with a smile, shakes his hand, and allows him to introduce himself. These subtle acts of kindness contrast sharply with Arthur's initial skepticism about Murray's intentions.

Murray's actions, particularly when he doesn't remember his mocking comments, suggest he was engaged in a staged performance to boost his show's popularity. This discrepancy between his public persona and personal interactions adds layers of complexity to his character.

Role of Mockery in the Narrative

Murray's actions, such as mocking Arthur, play a crucial role in the film's narrative. While his comments aren't overly cruel, they contribute to Arthur's growing sense of hopelessness and the deterioration of his mental state. This relationship highlights the thin line between mockery and malicious intent.

Arthur's fixation on Murray, rooted in his traumatic upbringing, is a key factor in understanding the moral dilemma. Murray's actions, seen through the lens of Arthur's perspective, are deeply unsettling and contribute to the escalating tension in their relationship.

Ethical Considerations and the 'Line of Acceptability'

Among the multifaceted questions, the most pressing is whether Murray himself deserves the fate of being killed. From an outside perspective, making jokes about someone who is vulnerable is deplorable, but the context in which it occurs must be critically examined.

Murder is an extreme response, and the implied cause-and-effect relationship is exceedingly harsh given the actions that prompted it. Arthur's actions, driven by a combination of psychosocial stress and his current mental state, place the blame on his own decision-making, rather than solely on Murray's comments.

Exploring Hypocrisy and Empathy

It is worth noting that Arthur was not the first person Murray had mocked. His ability to empathize with others is questionable, and his actions, albeit cruel, were not uncommon in the stand-up comedy circles. Murray's patronizing attitude and lack of genuine care could be viewed as ironic, given Arthur’s interaction with his own mother, who consistently failed to show him empathy.

While one can sympathize with Arthur’s tragic past, his eagerness to take the critique personally and his clarity of memory regarding his own mocking behavior demonstrate a level of entitlement. This entitlement, however, does not excuse the unjustified and ultimately terminal act of violence.

Additionally, the third and final murder has a dimension of justifiable self-defense. It is unclear whether Murray would have ultimately become a threat, but the film suggests a growing fear and coercion from Arthur. This adds a layer to the discussion, warranting further exploration of the ethical and moral dimensions.

In conclusion, while Arthur's actions are regrettable, the narrative raises numerous questions about the moral implications of killing in response to mockery. The complexity of Murray's character and the broader societal context add layers to this intricate and thought-provoking dilemma.

Keywords: The Joker, Murders in the Joker, Arthur Fleck, SPOILER Warning