Messages in The Dark Knight Rises?

[Triumph]

While it doesn't happen with every popular movie, sometimes very popular movies become embroiled in political or cultural debate, with different people seeing a particular film as supporting or attacking their views. Even before it came out, The Dark Knight Rises started to get caught up in such discussions.

 

I am curious to hear from anyone who has seen the movie, what, if any, moral / philosophical / political / whatever ideas did you think TDKR tried to convey? Please note, I am not trying to start a debate about the merits any of ideas you think the movie promoted. I am curious whether people perceive the movie as communicating anything, and if so, what and how.

[Randomizer]

I haven't seen it yet, but every review I've read mentions comparisons to the Occupy Wall Street movement. Wayne is a 1%er.

[Dantius]

I think it's pretty hilarious that Rush Limbaugh tried to link the use of Bane as a villain to a liberal socialist Hollywood plot to smear Romney's firm Bain.

 

Ignoring the fact that the character is two decades old, written by a conservative Republican, and that it's Romney's own fault for naming his private equity firm a homonym for "deadly poison" instead of something like [boring adjectve/noun] [Capital/Management/Consulting/Funds].

[Cairo Jim]

If it had anything to do with supporting that Wall Street thing, they wouldn't of happily thrown a ridiculous amount of millions of dollars into it. Nor would they try charging me nearly $20 a ticket for something that bores me to death.

[Randomizer]

Originally Posted By: Dantius

I think it's pretty hilarious that Rush Limbaugh tried to link the use of Bane as a villain to a liberal socialist Hollywood plot to smear Romney's firm Bain.

Rush Limbaugh never lets the facts interfere with a good rant.

[Juan Carlo]

[spoilers]

 

I don't know if the creators intended it or not, but I'd say what little political message is there is pretty conservative. The movie for the most part avoids politics, but Bain at least seems to be aligned somewhat with the OWS movement. Obviously, I think he's just using the rhetoric to further his cause, but the movie doesn't really paint a pretty picture of OWS sorts of sentiments as it ultimately shows them to lead only to violence and extremism.

 

The only problem is that the politics of his group are left pretty vague--he does give a few speeches about the poor rising up against the wealthy to take back the city, but it's all left pretty half baked. As a consequence, I never really understood his or Talia Al'Ghul's motivation for doing anything. They were prepared to blow themselves up to succeed at their goal, but I still don't understand why they were so passionate as they are never really given a cause. This problem goes all the way back to "Batman Begins" where Ras Al'Ghul explains that his secret assassin guild has been destroying cities when they become too corrupt for centuries--but even there they never really explain why they do it other than just saying that they do. Plus, Ras Al'Ghul, while passionate, never seemed like the sort who would blow himself up to succeed. So having his daughter suddenly become a suicide bomber was kind of strange.

 

Maybe this is something that is greater explained in the comics, though, I don't know.

 

But I've always though The Dark Knight was pretty conservative too--or, at least, "neo con" when when it came to issues of national defense in the post-911 Bush era.

[VCH]

Originally Posted By: Cairo Jim

If it had anything to do with supporting that Wall Street thing, they wouldn't of happily thrown a ridiculous amount of millions of dollars into it. Nor would they try charging me nearly $20 a ticket for something that bores me to death.

Wow, 20.00 a ticket?

My town's small 150 seat theatre charges $9.00 a ticket—$6.00 for matinees. But I know what you mean, tickets are damn expensive at most theatres, especially for 3D movies.

[Cairo Jim]

I can't remember the exact price of a ticket, but I think it's pretty close to the $20 mark.

[keira]

My local theatre sell tickets for $4 for adults, $3 for kids. And the food is not exorbitant either.

[VCH]

Does it play current movies or only older ones, because that is amazingly cheap.

[Archaeolagent]

That is obscenely cheap for American dollars. $10-$20 is what I see here.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Juan Carlo

Click to reveal.. (Spoilers, duh)

I don't know if the creators intended it or not, but I'd say what little political message is there is pretty conservative. The movie for the most part avoids politics, but Bain at least seems to be aligned somewhat with the OWS movement. Obviously, I think he's just using the rhetoric to further his cause, but the movie doesn't really paint a pretty picture of OWS sorts of sentiments as it ultimately shows them to lead only to violence and extremism.

The only problem is that the politics of his group are left pretty vague--he does give a few speeches about the poor rising up against the wealthy to take back the city, but it's all left pretty half baked. As a consequence, I never really understood his or Talia Al'Ghul's motivation for doing anything. They were prepared to blow themselves up to succeed at their goal, but I still don't understand why they were so passionate as they are never really given a cause. This problem goes all the way back to "Batman Begins" where Ras Al'Ghul explains that his secret assassin guild has been destroying cities when they become too corrupt for centuries--but even there they never really explain why they do it other than just saying that they do. Plus, Ras Al'Ghul, while passionate, never seemed like the sort who would blow himself up to succeed. So having his daughter suddenly become a suicide bomber was kind of strange.

Maybe this is something that is greater explained in the comics, though, I don't know.

But I've always though The Dark Knight was pretty conservative too--or, at least, "neo con" when when it came to issues of national defense in the post-911 Bush era.

Click to reveal.. (My response)

See, this case may be an instance Nolan brilliantly directing Bane is such a manner that it leaves his motivations wide open enough for you to ascribe your own personal bogeyman's mores to him, but I got a clear feeling that Bane's ideology was more informed by straight-up libertarianism to an almost Randian degree as opposed to vanilla OWS. His primary motivation seemed to be less "Let's party murder the rich like it's 1789" and more "Let's 'free' the people of Gotham from the government by removing all cops and federal troops". Definitely got a neocon, pro-PATRIOT vibe, though that subtext was noticeably stronger in the last one.

It seems to me that, in the muddle that was the second half of the movie, it was trying to make a almost Hobbesian point about bellum omnium etc., which it then proceeded to undercut spectacularly- instead of ordinary citizens being the ones doing the looting and murdering-rich-people thing, it was Gotham's most hardened criminals, who had just been freed from prison and armed. So it wound up much more "Mad Max meets NYC" (honestly, it's quite clear from Bane's armor that that was what they were going for) than "Deep social commentary on the nature of mankind", which seemed kind of silly.

Two, two and a half stars out of four, tops.

[keira]

Originally Posted By: VCH

Does it play current movies or only older ones, because that is amazingly cheap.

It's usually two or three weeks behind when new movies come out, but 'eh. I'd rather wait than to some Sticky Floor Chain Movie Theater.

[RCCCL]

Looking back at the movie and trying to ascribe a tone of politics to it, yeah, I can see it, but when I go to see a movie, I'm there to be entertained, and if there was any political intent in the movie, it was not blatant enough for me to take notice.

[VCH]

No doubt, Homage, no doubt. Any way, lucky you.

 

On a related note, 3D movies really piss me off: 3D adds nothing of value, the glasses are not comfortable and make every scene way darker than it should be.

[nikki.]

Click to reveal..

I think it's relevant to note that Bane's plan was to level the city with a nuclear blast; the 'liberation' of Gotham was only ever meant to give the people a false hope, because one cannot know true despair without also knowing hope (which he pretty clearly explains).

I'm not saying that there isn't merit in discussing politics, since it's obviously important to this film, but it's worth considering that Bane might've done something different if he were planning on keeping Gotham around for a while.

For the record, I like it. And it is much better on a second viewing.

[A less presumptuous name.]

Originally Posted By: VCH

On a related note, 3D movies really piss me off: 3D adds nothing of value, the glasses are not comfortable and make every scene way darker than it should be.

And what of those of us with prescription glasses? 3D glasses are particularly uncomfortable for me, and I've yet to see a movie that really *needed* to be 3D to work. In fact, most movies don't gain much of anything, in my experience.

[Dikiyoba]

I wear prescription glasses and didn't have any problems with the 3D glasses the one time I saw a 3D movie.

 

Dikiyoba isn't crazy about 3D movies, but mostly because of the additional cost. If the cost were about the same, Dikiyoba would be interested in watching movies in 3D.

[Tyranicus]

I have a large head, and 3D glasses press into the sides causing discomfort.

[RCCCL]

As for the 3D, I agree with one exception, Avatar was amazing in Imax 3D. Other than that, every other movie I've seen in 3D has not benefited from the 3D and in a few cases, suffered.

[Cairo Jim]

The only movie I've seen in 3D was Avatar, and I wasn't impressed either. I could of watched it on the normal screens and the difference would of been extremely minimal.

[nikki.]

Eh, I've seen a few. I don't know if it's my poor eyesight or what, though, but some films (I'm looking at you, Avengers) just actually didn't seem all that three-dimensional. I dunno.

 

TDKR was my first IMAX film I've seen, though. I will probably pay the extra £2 in future to see more.

[keira]

Originally Posted By: Cairo Jim

The only movie I've seen in 3D was Avatar, and I wasn't impressed either. I could of watched it on the normal screens and the difference would of been extremely minimal.

[Cairo Jim]

I beg to differ on that.

[Triumph]

I beg you defer on that - to Sylae.

[keira]

'could of' comes from 'could\'ve', which means 'could have'. I do not know too much about mapping sentence structure and constructs, but I would presume that a random preposition would complicate matters somewhat.

[Tyranicus]

Originally Posted By: Cairo Jim

I beg to differ on that.

You would be wrong.

[Little Fyora]

eh what's going on over here. Childish.

 

As for 3D movies, I love them. I keep the 3D glasses with me even after the show, so I can take it to the next 3D film!

[Alorael at Large]

I don't get the 3D craze. I've seen some movies in 3D, and the effect is noticeable, but I don't think it's particularly better. I'm sure some visionary artist could use it to great effect, but I don't think any have yet.

 

—Alorael, who saw The Dark Knight Rises last night, and he'll now spew spoilers. It was good, but not great, and included far more of the standard superhero movie flaws than The Dark Knight. In particular, something was very wrong with the fusion reactor that was able to become unstable and started leaking radiation. It really ought to have been a better fission reactor. And the timer counting down months to the second really, really didn't need to be there. Timing it to arbitrary precision may have helped drama, but that's ridiculous.

[Balladeer]

Paid 19.50 to see The Dark Knight last Friday. That is the whole family and a friend piled into our van and went to the drive in theater for only 19.50. Bonus, The Amazing Spiderman played immediately afterwards. True, 3 AM is a really late night and true half the kids fell asleep, but for 20 bucks, a night of action and adventure for all who stayed awake was quite a deal.

 

As for political undertones... I agree with RCCCL. I went to be entertained by explosions, unreasonable violence, and unrealistic plot-hole filled solutions to improbable illogical problems. The movie did not disappoint.

[Juan Carlo]

Avatar is one of few movies that actually looks good in 3D. In fact, I think that movie kind of sucks so there's no real reason to see it in 2D at all.

 

I just saw Spider Man 2 3D, however, and it was the worst 3D I've ever seen. Not necessarily because the 3D was bad, but more because it was hardly used at all. The film had a very minimal depth of field, so for most of it there was no difference between 3D and 2D.

 

I generally don't mind 3D, though, if the film was shot in 3D and designed to be seen in 3D. "Hugo" and "Prometheus" both looked good in 3D, for example. But films that were shot in 2D then post converted tend to suck. They usually just look like blurry dioramas.

[Cairo Jim]

Originally Posted By: Juan Carlo

Avatar is one of few movies that actually looks good in 3D. In fact, I think that movie kind of sucks so there's no real reason to see it in 2D at all.

I thought the story line, action and effects were quite good.

Originally Posted By: Juan Carlo

Not necessarily because the 3D was bad, but more because it was hardly used at all. The film had a very minimal depth of field, so for most of it there was no difference between 3D and 2D.

This is exactly what I thought of Avatar in 3D, and every other 3D movie for that matter.

[The Ratt]

I found that the 3D in Avatar really helped inspire awe in the scenery scenes; it really showed the scale of the geography.

[Juan Carlo]

Originally Posted By: Cairo Jim

I thought the story line, action and effects were quite good.

The CGI and action were good, but the storyline was kind of cheesy, I thought. It was basically "Dances with Wolves" only with aliens instead of Native Americans.

Quote:

This is exactly what I thought of Avatar in 3D, and every other 3D movie for that matter.

I thought Avatar looked awesome in IMAX, at least. With post converted 2D films you very much get things divided into separate flat planes, so things end up looking like a pop up book. Plus, if it wasn't shot in 3D depth of field can get messed up at times (so stuff that isn't in focus, whether it is in the foreground or the background, can end up looking weird). But Avatar had objects which gradually receded into the back ground, so it looked a lot more realistic.

That said, at the end of the day I can take or leave 3D. It's not a special attraction for me, but I don't mind it as much as other people seem to either. If a movie is available in my area in 3D I'll see it, but if not no big deal.