I just came accross this. Some spoilers:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/07/20/Spoiler-Alert-TDKR-Most-Conservative-Movie-Ever
Definitely anti-leftist:
SPOILER
The only thing I didn’t like in the movie were the police: not just for their glorification, but mostly because of their ridiculous massed march down the street vs. machine guns and tanks. Ever heard of taking cover? I was thinking how nonsensical such tactics were in the earlier scene in which they all poured in underground, but the above ground part was even worse. Obviously both scenes were merely plot devices.
Also, in regard to the article you posted, I think the funniest exchange in the movie was (and I paraphrase):
Miranda: You should invest in clean energy.
Wayne: Not all investments pay off.
I think I was the only one in the cinema who laughed, though.
Pse, he is pro-Romney. Not very capitalist if you ask me.
My take is that it is anti-capitalist. When the bad guys spout their BS about the rich, it is not delivered in such a way that you get the idea you are supposed to hate the bad guys. It feels more like they are giving a human element to the bad guys.
The film seemed more Randian to me than anything.
Well, I said anti-leftist.
I disagree that that makes the film anti-capitalist. Both Bane and Kyle wanted to overthrow the existing order. The difference between the former and the latter was that while Bane revelled in the resulting destruction, Kyle repented of it. I think Nolan included this sympathetic element on purpose to draw in the OWS types, only to turn the tables on them and argue that the destruction of the current order leads to a worse result than the status quo. This was all for cinematic effect: to have subtlety and ambiguity rather than the cliched ‘good guys’ and ‘bad guys’, and also for Kyle’s character development. There were no excuses for Bane ala ‘the right stage of capitalism hadn’t been reached yet’, but on the contrary Kyle changed her mind about the revolution even before she knew the bomb would go off no matter what (as I recall).
Aristippus,
Nolan probably wrote that in because that is pretty close to how Bane and Catwoman act in the comics. He didn’t make these characters up himself. He made some changes but their behaviour was more or less the same as it is in the comics.
I’ve noticed that a lot of people are trying really hard to make it seem like Nolan had a lot of political motivations with how he wrote this movie. Not sure if people read the Cataclysm and No Man’s Land stories but he obviously used some ideas from these stories for the movie.
I just saw the movie and it wasn’t pro-capitalist by any stretch of the imagination. The villain tried to impose anarchy on the city (bad), ultimately just wanting to kill everyone (cliche bad).
The villains weren’t portrayed as bad because they wanted to enforce their will on others, but because anarchy doesn’t work and only evil mean stupid people will take over if anarchy were ever put in place. Police were glorified, and the whole thing just stunk of “status quo” pandering.
The catwoman, who stole from the rich to help the needy out was not vilainized at all. She was either borderline or outright praised depending on how you look at it. She wasn’t punished or even scolded for her thievery in the entire movie.
So ya, I totally called it. Also, Bat Man in this series has been a totally forgettable super hero. No one really knows what the hell he fights for, and neither does he.
He fights people that are violent psychopaths. Who wouldn’t? Ho hum.
I don’t know about the villains not being portrayed negatively–they murdered a ton of people and attempted to murder millions more. That doesn’t sound like anarchy to me despite whatever dialogue he speaks about “setting the people free” (I see the French Revolution parallel without too much of a stretch).
The film depicts the culture of anti-capitalism as vapid and silly, ultimately resulting in destruction brought upon by a ‘great equalizer’.
Catwoman wasn’t villainized because she served as the dynamic protagonist that ultimately realized that the commune-like conditions that she initially championed was only a farce and results in horrific chaos. Not to mention that she is arrested and taken into custody for her thievery.
He fights people that are violent psychopaths. Who wouldn’t? Ho hum.
So you prefer your action movies to have unrelatable protagonists? And I suppose Silence of the Lambs is boring because Buffalo Bill and Hannibal Lecter are violent psychopaths.
I really liked this movie and this franchise, far more depth than any superhero series has ever had. Other than the heroic exploits of the cops (even though they were not acting on behalf of the state, but rather a human self interest for survival), I don’t see a whole lot to dislike about this film.
I don’t pick up on every movie that comes out and wonder if it’s capitalist or anti-capitalist, and since I’m the only one here who has an interest in scholars who write on “reactionary” views I sort of have a sympathetic interest in Bane and the League of Shadows. They see Gotham as a materialistic city in decay from it’s own decadence, that it would be better to just destroy it all and start over new. If I could go further it’s closer to Nietzsche’s active nihilism, and in some aspects to “ride the tiger” until it’s all over.
TBH it would be like us going over and breaking down the economic pursuits of Memento and Inception. Who cares? It’s far from the point of the movie.
Interesting: I would probably view “decadent materialism” as the exact opposite of decay.
More to the point I don’t see how Nietzsche could make any sense or be worth anything if he promoted any form of Platonized romantic anti-social behvaior. I never thought of Nietzsche in this light.
Than again, asmuch as I utilize and like Nietzsche - I am something like a liberal Stirnerite-Mengerian; I forget sometimes I am not a Nietzschean and he ends up moralizing in the end - and is probably to be used as a top notch auxillary philosopher to point to things when trying to set up an initial picture of “Austrianism”.
I would also take umbrage with the term nihilist as a metaphysical starting position…as I view that in direct contrast with egoist. Nietzsche was not a nihilist (and perhaps not an uber-egoist, none the less he was closer to egoism).
On the movie being pro capitalist:
Not really. It’s about wanting to blow something up dramatically due to vengence…and the people who know things are going to be blown sky high trying to prevent such a measure - that’s it. Bane / Talia are just acting out a plan of revenge
Well, decadent has the meaning of decay (unless my online dictionary is wrong), so I sort of just made a redundant statement, but Gotham has a lot of wealth and at the same time is filled with decay, it goes even further how corrupt it’s own “organs” are. You have the extravagant egotistical parties and people trying to “find work” in sewers.
When it comes to Nietzsche I’m borrowing the term “active nihilism” from a traditionalist stance, but this may also be in the sense of any type of decay and instead of trying to fix or counter it simply let it take it’s course and try the best to be the one on top when shit hits the fan.
I was using something closer to definition 2 and even shades of 3:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/decadent
I think when using “decadent” meaning “decay” it could work, but I would look at it as more of an “empty set” tautology.
simply let it take it’s course and try the best to be the one on top when shit hits the fan.
Oh well depending on how this is used that’s fine (though I don’t know where nihilism comes in). This goes at least somewhat along with creative-destruction,Hayekian naturalism, and Menger and Bohm-Bawerk’s views on fashionable but incorrect ideas in academia.
Of course it’s impractical and silly to analyze every Christopher Nolan movie, but I feel that TDKR has far more relevant themes to our interests at Mises than any others: It is specifically noted in the first film that the League of Shadows used “economic” tactics to try to bring down Gotham’s infrastructure, which we see tied in with Talia in the third film. There are also conspicuous themes of class warfare/socio-economic disparity. And I also am sympathetic with the villains from the movies; their characters are painted in more than the usual black and white–the Joker was a victim of domestic abuse, Bane was enslaved and tortured, Scarecrow has mental disorders.
And of course the point of the movie is removed from this discussion; the point is to entertain. But in doing so it has depicted some relevant themes about what we all love discussing–whether or not you wish to do so. Plus, the movie was awesome and they killed Batman.
Batman didn’t die.
Perhaps he means spiritually?
Dark Knight Rises: It’s Politics and Ours, by Jeffrey Tucker http://lfb.org/today/dark-knight-rises-its-politics-and-ours/
Finally, we get to the true meat of the debate: Did Batman die?
Of course Chris Nolan is notorious for ambiguous endings, but, dammit, Batman can’t survive an atomic blast. Alfred was daydreaming. Bruce Wayne didn’t fear death and thought that his martyrdom was ultimately necessary.
Maybe the entire movie was Alred’s dream. Batman didn’t die; he was seen in Florence with the girl from The Princess Diaries.
If Batman did die, then the ending sucked. How’s the next movie going to begin; with the funeral? Then another two hours of Robin and Catwoman teaming up? Might as well add a twist at the end where we see Batman’s eyes open while he’s six feet under, leaving ambiguity and stuff for the following film.
There will be no more Chris Nolan batman movies. His trilogy took a whole new life unto themselves and so I think it’s fitting to leave the last movie ambiguous as to the fate of Batman. Whether or not (in the story) Bruce Wayne survives, Batman is dead regardless because he finally vindicates himself in the eyes of Gotham (i.e., the Batman statue revealed in the end) and retires for good.
And despite what Alfred says earlier in the movie about how he wishes to quietly acknowledge Bruce Wayne in Florence someday once he’s found a new life for himself–I don’t buy that once Alfred has been shown weeping and talking about how he’s failed Bruce that his reaction to suddenly finding out he’s alive would be so subtle and subdued. But, just like Inception, Chris Nolan intentionally left many clues supporting either ending, but I think the most realistic is that Bruce Wayne the person is dead but the spirit and essense of Batman lives on through his impact on Gotham and the other protagonists.