Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
Also, I hearby declare that from henceforth, the Dark Knight Rises should referenced as "B for Banedetta"
Well, you can easily argue that the first one is about how terrorists are actually scary british ninjas.
Honestly, given how useless the police in Gotham are repeatedly shown to be, Batman being "reactionary" is perfectly understandable.
Pardon me, but am I the only person that saw Bane and his gang as a commentary on the tendency of revolutions to turn to hypocritical and self-destructive barbarism in the hands of leaders with their own personal agendas? If anything, Bane feels more like a jab at people like Robespierre and Stalin than anyone more recent, at least to me. The strength fetishisation and the whole subplot with the sleazy investor further undercut the pure "socialism is bad" interpretation in my eyes.
Mind you, I don't think the message was "Socialism is bad" so much as "Left wingers are a superstitious cowardly lot who one day will kill us all and what we need to avoid that is a dude to punch them really hard"
That's hypocritical of Nolan, given that democracy and capitalism were initially founded on revolutions. If we take the sensible route and assume that he's aware of these revolutions and considered them to be for the best, then it only really leaves the option of him railing against more heavily leftist styles of government. Which is really what he did, because much of the political content in The Dark Knight Rises is a caricature of socialist ideas. Stuff like the martial law, biased courts, rampages and whatnot come straight out of pop-cultural fear of the Red Menace.'
So yeah, Nolan totally used a fictional idea of socialism to represent it in the film, then railed against it. I think there are plenty of intelligent, decent people who aren't too enthralled with socialist ideas, but there's that and then there's arguing against the system based on a fictional construct.
The really frustrating thing about the movie is that it comes so close to some real awareness with some of Catwoman's lines--"the rich don't even go broke like the rest of us" is the main one that comes to mind--and then goes straight to "army of poors literally attacking Wall Street."
Similarly, Batman Begins made a point of illustrating that Joe Chill's crime was due to economic conditions (implying those conditions were Ra's Al'Ghul's fault was kind of silly, but you can't punch corporate greed and banking deregulations in the face), but then the next film has "the power to spy on an entire city is a good thing in the right hands".
Both the police and Batman are equally fictional and have no independent agency of their own. Their depictions and actions both serve to advance the author's agenda.
Batman isn't reactionary because the police are useless--the police are useless in order to validate a hero who takes "extreme measures" .
The joke is that IRL reactionaries are losers.
Geez guys.
I'unno.
I mean, Morgan Freeman condemns Batman for it. And the golden rule of movies is that if Morgan Freeman condemns it, then it is wrong.
However, there was a film in which Morgan Freeman condemned cold fusion. Don't remember the title though, something about chain reaction.
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
Also, wasn't there this whole thing with the fight against evil turning people evil thing, so thus it could be said that even Batman's use of the whole spy network was just an extension of that theme.
What I mean is that normally Morgan Freeman is used as a voice for the author, not necessarily that his judgment is always right or wrong.
I was also being facetious.
Mind you, the Dark Knight is still problematic (The whole "Terrorism as morality dilemmas from basic philosophy courses" thing is pretty...blagh) and the movie does treat the whole "Digital surveillance of celulars" as well...not necessarily good? It condemns it, but at the same time, it lets Batman use it and it implies that there are situations when it is useful.
"You know how they caught the thief, they burned down the forest!" "But I'm Batman" "Ok, s'cool then."
It was a really good joke, too.
I just couldn't think of much to say about it besides "it was good and I laughed."
I was thinking it lacks something about Batman attributing every single of his falls to Evil Socialists (i.e. everyone less extreme than him), but that might be local flavouring.
I still don't buy Bane representing left-wing movements at all.
It's very typical of the right wing to claim that the revolutionary vanguard are always in it for themselves and manipulate the masses to fulfill their personal agenda. Which Bane is, really.
Well I can't really argue against that if that's what the right-wing claims. But keep in mind Bane is also the bad guy, so the idea that he fits some conspiracy theorists idea of the 'bad guy', I wouldn't read into it as a message that the movie is trying to make.
Now that I think about it, can the same argument can be made of Scar in the Lion King? Since it seems to justify a chaste system.