THE DARK KNIGHT RISES Post-release thread..... - Page 40

 

I can't escape the impression of this being a bit of a smirking circle-jerk of a discussion, due in part to the talk of the films politics and the casually dismissive tone of things I feel are actually perfectly strong about the film and Nolan's abilities as a filmmaker.

 

The emphasis on TDKR's political murk is a tired one, and I feel, a largely incorrect one. The fact that the main character in all these films is a masked billionaire thrashing the hell out of people in the dead of night is probably going to upset any attempt to graft a perfectly delineated political agenda upon, and the constant inference that Nolan is directly addressing and/or criticizing the Occupy movement is highly debatable, as it's been outright denied by the man himself (he could absolutely be bullshitting to protect himself, but again, it's debatable). 

 

Concern over economic inequality and entropy has been woven throughout the series since the first film, so it's not like TDKR suddenly adopted a new subject. One character that always pops into my head from TDK is Ramirez. She's not joyfully corrupt like Flass from BB, she's found herself under the thumb of the mob because they found a weak point: her ailing mother and Ramirez's financial inability to keep up with her treatment. She's not just saying this to keep Two-Face from killing her, it's setup in the opening moments of the film in her brief rooftop discussion with Gordon. Then we have the ferry sequence, which makes a broad and hopeful statement about the inherent decency of people (insofar as one is able to buy that). Neither the average citizens or the prisoners are directly inspired by Batman, but it's held (or at least Batman holds it) as proof of concept, that people don't necessarily have to break when you tap dance on their fracture point.

 

It was a triumph he and Gordon undercut by deceiving the citizens with a false idol, something that was heavily criticized upon that film's initial release by people who rather ridiculously assumed that Nolan was holding up as a proper and moral decision, when his whole career thusfar has been about placing the audience in the subjective lens of his antagonists, who, wouldn't you know it, often suffer from a terribly fractured psychology and are prone to making morally gray decisions that they are on the face of it, certain is the right thing to do.

 

As Gordon says to Foley in the lead up to the climax of TDKR, "the problem only gets fixed from inside the city", there is no one, external miracle cure all that will save / sustain Gotham from falling apart, but a level of communication, understanding, commonality, and that inherent something, an almost ineffable thing that fear and practicality often keeps just outside of arms length.

 

I would also like to point out that it seems that the neutron bomb, as it is repeatedly described in the film, was referred to as a "capitalist bomb" by Leonid Brezhnev because while it would annihilate human life, it would leave property generally operable or preserved. In the film the scientist who turns the clean energy device into a bomb is a Russian scientist named Leonid Pavel. Coincidence? I suspect not.   

 

I want to get around to addressing their more direct criticisms of the film and Nolan's skill as a director, but I might have to do that later today if I can.  

Edited by JacknifeJohnny - 8/11/12 at 11:08am

Isn't it obvious? Blake's got an ARMY OF KIDS right above the Batcave. Spinoff: ROBIN AND THE BATBOYS.

 

Shit would be more adorable than kittens having a sleepover with squirrels.

 

If people are talking about the movie's politics, it's because the movie very much invites them to do so by putting matters of class inequality first and foremost in its plot (while they've merely hovered in the background for most of the rest of the series). And if it seems like people are trying to out-smart Nolan, it's because that's one very valid way of approaching the films of one of the day's most cerebral, thought-driven filmmakers. 

Edited by agracru - 8/11/12 at 2:00pm

 

I made a similar point one or two times over in "The Avengers" thread. I think trying to apply a specific and temporal political state of affairs to superheroes is almost always folly. Whenever politics are addressed directly in the comics, they invariably come off as shitty and dated. They work better when they deal with bigger issues of humanity and heroism.

 

.........

 

And good point that economic issues have always been present in Nolan's trilogy. Consider the scene in "Begins" when Rachel drives Wayne down to show him all the people devastated by the "Depression". Joe Chill is a product of this environment, we're told-- not the faceless killer who drives the popular interpretation of Batman from the last couple of decades in the comics.

 

This was surely a deliberate choice on the part of Nolan and his writers. Nolan's Batman is attacking a larger societal problem-- organized crime, corrupt government-- not beating the shit out of muggers... I think you could probably square all that with the supposed "right-wing" bent of the other two films, but it isn't necessary.

 

ETA: By the way, I also look forward to a good examination of the way Nolan put this movie together as a whole, and what it says about him as a filmmaker. I really liked TDKR, but may be going under a reconsideration now... Not that I've turned on it, mind-- but minutiae aside, it might not be as good as I thought it was, walking out of the theater.

Edited by Slim - 8/11/12 at 11:50am

You bring up some interesting points because another one of the main criticisms in the film is "where the hell are the citizens of Gotham in all of this? Aren't we supposed to see how they're inspired?" This criticism is a valid one, but up to a point. 

 

If TDK was about the inherit good that is possible within a common citizen without any political gain, then TDKR is about why we look up to those who should be sustaining it. Up until the end, Batman is still considered Public Enemy Number 1 (at least number 2 by the time Bane took over) in Gotham. He and Gordon's questionable ethics at the end of TDK is brought to light, but by the same token, Batman is no longer responsible insofar as he really committed murder. 

 

Normal citizens were not going to fight this war, because heroes have a place. This is where the film is asking you not to see it political at all. We know Batman's heart and intent. We know the cops are trying to bring order to a city that absolutely needs it because the past is the past, and heroes are needed. We know Bane and Talia are about to send Gotham to the stone age... and then completely obliterate it. And still heroes are needed and heroes are made through their wake. 

 

In order for Batman to be the hero Gotham needs, Gotham will have to completely let him because this is outside anything their capable of winning. 

 

If you look at it this way, Rises is the ultimate 9/11 movie. It's about how small people felt in New York on that day, but how fortunate they were to have the heroes be the heroes. A New York City cop you hated that one day because they decided to exceed their authority was now leading some men into a building to save people from certain doom. 

 

The buildings were going to collapse. There were some that doubted it. There was no fail-safe. And in Gotham, there was no way anyone could transport the bomb away from the city and not have enormous casualties. It had to be Batman. Once that bomb went off everyone realized it. No matter what they felt of him before, nobody could deny the ultimate sacrifice.

Fortunately this is all solved by FLYING A NUKE AWAY FROM THE CITY. Easy peasy.

 

BTW, self-promotion, I wrote a bit about being disturbed by the violence in this film over here. Hope someone finds something relateable in all that chatter.

 

Yes-- Saving a city from nuclear destruction earns a hero brownie points with everyone, regardless of his political orientation. Cf. Anthony Stark.

I think that's the whole point of the movie. The lower class people in the city and the villains stirring them up spend so much time trying to validate their ideologies and political stances that they loose sight of what their purpose is: Saving people.

 

Bingo.

 

Jesus-- I hate that I keep comparing Nolan's Batman films to "The Wire", because they are clearly nowhere near as good. But in both pieces is this sense that institutions have failed us, become calcified and corrupt... and in both is the question: what are they all there for in the first fucking place, if not to do the right thing?

 

The response of characters in both cases is a highly-individualistic one. I reckon that could be read as a conservative stance... But no one's ever accused David Simon of being a conservative.

 

And again, I don't think that it's necessary to do so, because you're really dealing with bigger things.

On an interesting note, I don't feel Bane was merely there for revenge nor for Talia. While he is deceiving the public for the plan to work, there's no way he doesn't believe in what he's saying to the public. He's speaking truthfully. He is upholding his standards, his ethics. He really is forming a revolution, and the ultimate expression of that is to die doing it.

 

"They expect one of us in the wreckage, brother." "Have we started a fire?" "Yes, the fire rises."

 

The selfishness in the part of Bane is that he commands others die by his hand to prove a point. He and his revolutionaries will become a symbol in the fire. If that isn't pure Islamic Terrorism at its core, I don't know what is. Batman's counter is one of selflessness. 

 

Have to disagree. I felt it was really obvious he didn't believe a line of the bullshit he was peddling outside of Blackgate and at the game. Also: what's the point in getting the people all, ahem, fired up for a revolution when you're just going to nuke them in 3 months?

 

Bane was really clear in the first fight with bats: this was personal. Whether it was for Talia, or his sense of loyalty toward Ra's, or the League's cause....Bane wanted Batman broken and hopeless.

 

Yeah, it definitely felt like he was pulling a Die Hard and just feeding the US govt a line so they wouldn't storm the city.

 

Check out the monlogue:

The last two sentences and the idea of giving it all to the people (he's always in control) are the lie. But watch him in the scene how he talks about the corrupt. It's the words of a believer. He's feeding Gotham the Truth to orchestrate the Lie.

His tone was 100% Bullshit though, and he knew it. It was awesome.

 

"We take Gotham from the corrupt.
The rich. The oppressors of
generations who’ve kept you down
with the myth of opportunity. And
we give it to you, the people.
Gotham is yours - none shall
interfere. Do as you please..."

 

That bit especially looking at his mannerism while delivering it, and the reading of the Harvey Dent letter, was him completely taking the piss. I was in stitches at his delivery.

 

I want to marry and have babies with the way you constructed this post.  All the rep points to you and please elucidate further at your earliest convenience.

One big problem I had with the movie as I was watching it, was why would anyone believe Bane? Here was a terrorist who blew up a football game, who then held a city hostage and read from a mysterious piece of paper a story about how everything Gotham knew of Harvey Dent was a lie. Bane comes in and does this in an era in which we are told the city has never been better. It was an era of peace till the killer in the mask showed up. Why would people rush to believe this guy? It's like Bin Laden putting out a tape telling everyone that the moon landing was fake, only to have an angry mob storm the Smithsonian to smash the Apollo 11 exhibit.

It's right when he says, "And we give it to you, the people." where his eyes twinkle with glee. I love that moment.

"... give it to YOOOooOOOoooOOu... da peeeeeeEEEEople!"

 

(nod nod nod)

But the people hanging on his words and attacking the police in response to them are the convicts who are naturally inclined to hate the police. They don't even need the excuse of his revelation about Gordon to motivate them to riot. The moment they were set free, they were already primed for that.

"Batman's a jerk and you're a city of jerks. I want your gasoline"

It would be cool if there was a deleted scene where Bane's main henchman (the one who talks to the army guy on the bridge) gave this speech to Bane:

 

 

 

I demand a spin-off film where Bane and the Henchman guy do this exact thing with a Tumbler! "Lord Humongous doesn't get put in the friend zone by the chick he saved from a prison"

That was a plot hole to me.  Not that Bruce got back into Gotham.  He's a fucking mystical ninja, I didn't blink at that.  But the fact that Bane reading out Gordons letter is evidently immediately truth?

Bane's following the tradition of playing the pinheaded puppets of Gotham like a HARP FROM HELL!!!

Yep, TDKR would've been alot better had Bane pulled a "Cobblepot" & run for Gotham Comptroller.

Gotham dwellers are such plebs.

Saw it this afternoon. Truly loved it and thought it was a great finale to the trilogy. I was surprised my wife loved it as much as she did. I see that there's over 1900 posts already on the movie so I'll say no more since it's probably already been said. Such a great movie.

 

So..it's kinda like this thread, then?

Any movie that deliberately has political overtones or undertones to it invites discussion about them. And if you're ever going to sit there and say "don't talk about that stuff, it's not important," then what the fuck is the point of film discussion at all? You basically come off like cry babies that say "only talk about THE GOOD THINGS!" 

This movie had echoes of the Occupied Wall Street movement. Sorry, it's going to be discussed. It didn't have to have those things. It's not like Nolan's hands were tied. He put it in there. It's deliberate. Therefore, it's worth discussing, especially given that what the movie says about it is murky as fuck and clearly Nolan wants you to think about it but doesn't know how it wants you to think about it. That's not the same issue with The Dark Knight, which did a better job of tying its marrying it's political overtones with the plot and themes.

 

In short, just because critics sat around and discussed the film at length, what they liked and didn't like, intelligently with thought out arguments, and just because some of them had opinions that differ than yours doesn't make said discussion a "smirking circle jerk." Grow up if you can't handle it. 

Did you even read anything past his opening paragraph? Pretty sure he was not complaining about people discussing the politics of the film, but that the film isn't leaning on political stances insomuch that it's presenting them as the reality of the city and the people that inhabit it. But you know, if we're gonna go ahead and start telling people to grow up, then this thread has immediately turned into "that" thread.

 

Yeah, I read it. It's not a good argument because it asks viewers to ignore the connections with reality the film invites you to make as soon as they become complicated. Even if the politics make sense only in the context of the film (which, hey, they kinda don't), as soon as someone invites you to connect them to reality (which has happened throughout this series) you can't help but think about the intentions and what they're supposed to mean. To suggest anything else is to promote a resistance of analysis, which is lazy, "head-in-the-sand-let-me-just-enjoy-this-and-not-think" mentality. If that's how you want to view movies, have at. But don't go around saying you expect everyone else to think (or, not think) about movies the same way. 

 

And yes, grow up is appropriate, because this argument is fundamentally about people getting upset about others ---- not even criticizing, but discussing the film. That's the side you're defending right now. I never said anyone needs to think about it like I do. But Johnny's argument is essentially saying that people are having a "smirking circle jerk" because he doesn't like or agree with the way people are discussing a movie. Fuck that noise. 

Edited by Parker - 8/12/12 at 7:23am

To be fair, "smirking circle-jerk discussion" perfectly describes the MUBI community. I browsed the forums, and came upon threads of people complimenting each other for loving the same French New Wave films. Incredibly boring group of people.

 

It's why I like CHUD. People here can see the value of a film like Tree of Life, but also Raid: Redemption, or Humanoids from the Deep.

Hahahaha.  As much as I loved reading the discussion that Parker linked, I did get a sense of 'smirking circle-jerkery' in their tone.  But I actually appreciate that.

 

Hey, you just know that there are people who think the same thing about CHUD.

I think the same thing about CHUD and I'm a part of it. There are a billion posts about fucking Batman, and people are complaining about a discussion of the French New Wave. Unbelievable. 

Anyone else's significant other have the hots for Bane? My wife's seen Inception and didn't rave over Hardy then. It wasn't until he put on the mask that she cared who he was.
 

 

But mostly, Batman and the Avengers. 

 

And don't get me wrong, I love CHUD and genre stuff too, but it irks me that the discussion continues to swell to glutinous proportions but remains alarmingly defensive. It's gotten pretty boring. I'm ready to talk about something else.

I had faith that Parker would have one of his impulsive, hyper-aggressive spazz outs. I would normally take it head-on or whatever, but at this point it's damn near a CHUD hallmark and kind of cute. I really do wish to get to talking more about the movie and that MUBI discussion (I do so hate when people don't like a movie I like! I cried myself to sleep on my Batman pillow thinking about it.), but I must earn a living. Later today I hope.  

 

Anyone else here see the Gotham Rogues/Rapid City Monuments game? Seriously, what was that about?? Worst halftime show ever.

 

I say this with nothing but love (seriously, I like you): this movie has made you really pissy. If you read what was written above as a "hyper-aggressive spazz out"? Then you totally are being alarmingly defensive.

Yeah man, I fully admit that I can go overboard with the sarcasm and snark quite often on these boards, but I tried to be pretty reasonable in my response. I called your argument bad because I think it is and presented a counter argument. Sorry. 

 

And your'e the one that jumped over a simple linked discussion with an epic post that was all "WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG." So maybe it's time to look in the mirror a little. 

You are all of you monsters.

Nobody cared who I was until I put on the hyper-aggressive spazz out. 

The Dark Knight films absolutely invite political discussion. It's when people try to pin a partisan agenda on them that the discussion goes sour.

That's part of what frustrates me in discussions of this film and films like it; inevitably they all come down to discussions of what not to read into it, which is an inherently defensive response. Even The Avengers got to that point for me, and that's one of my favorite movies of the year. It's not a good way to be when talking film.

 

I have spoken of my intent to tap that in this very thread, yes.

 

Art is subjective.  Telling people not to read things into art is a futile exercise.  If anything, people should encourage it.  I've found all sorts of things to like about this movie that I wouldn't have found otherwise if not for other people's points of view.

 

Yeah, I agree completely-- and while I've had the opposite experience with this film from you (everything I read just becomes one other thing that lowers it in my personal esteem), I've definitely had the same experience with others (like Drive, Certified Copy, Moonrise Kingdom, Beasts of the Southern Wild, and a bunch of other movies from this year and last year). That's why I like talking about film. It's the only way to solidify, strengthen, or alter my perspective on the pictures I watch week in and week out.

 

I don't think anyone is wrong for not reading into the film's politics just like I don't think anyone is wrong for doing precisely that. We all have deeply personal and individual reactions to the art we observe. 

 

 

 

 

So where was Alfred during all the hubub in Gotham?  Did he manage to leave the city before the shit went down?  I suppose the timing would work out.

 

(he was actually crying in his room the whole time... Bruce never bothered doing much looking around did he???)

 

Damn.  No one cares.

 

 

 

 

You people are cold.

 

"You forgot to maintain your mask, son..."

 

 

 

Hahahaha, the movie barely had any tears for him.