The Dark Knight Rises

[CuckooTuli]

I wrote a blog post detailing the things that irke me most about the movie - see my sig, if anyone's interested.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by CuckooTuli

I wrote a blog post detailing the things that irke me most about the movie - see my sig, if anyone's interested.

I haven't seen it yet, I think I'm gong to wait until DVD (seriously, three hours in a theatre? Unless its Tolkien, no.) but people have been spoiling it for me left right and centre anyway so one thing you bring up that bothers me too is

SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER

Like you said, the misanthropy. No police, people become evil. Release the prisoners? THEY'LL RUIN EVERYTHING. And this is after eight years of a clean Gotham, what are the prisoners in there for again? Probably petty things like drug possession? Most inmates are nonviolent criminals. Aren't felon prisons usually run by the state separated from cities? Why would they be in Gotham? I really liked the boat scenes in Dark Knight because the hatred and mistrust of prisoners was so misplaced, and the Joker was wrong, there's good in everyone. So, what happened to that? Does the movie boil down to the police and the wealthiest white guy in all the city complaining about how hard it is to be cracker von patriarchs who beat up poor people?

[CuckooTuli]

Pretty much, yeah (by my reading, at least). It wouldn't have been so bad if there had at leastbeen different 'factions', like having some civvies who tried desperately to keep order in the absence of establishment support, while others ran amok. As was, though, it seemed that everyone just started behaving like murderous animals, the second the police force disappeared and the prison was busted open. I honestly don't think fascist apologism was too strong an accusation.

[AshleyO]

You see, this is what I'm talking about. This is also why I liked the movie.

1. Because it was Bane and I enjoyed the shit out of seeing Batman get his ass handed to him.

2. Because despite my disagreement with the thesis of the entire movie, I think it serves as a good example of how a brilliant mind such as Nolan's still sees the world.

I too was frustrated to see that most of the good citizens had shown NO autonomy what-so-ever and just holed up in their homes.

But this was an all out military coup by prisoners and a mastermind League of Assassins merc. They had the citizenry outclassed pretty quick with a nuke AND all of Batman's toys.

I def see where everyone is coming from from the points Nolan was trying to make and I agree with you guys on that. I still can't help but like it even though the conclusion and the whole point of the movie is something I completely disagree with.

[Despanan]

You guys are idiots.

Fascist apologism? What do you want? it's Batman. Batman is a fascist idea (Well, not necessarily fascist, but definitely conservative and authoritarian.)

Spoilers Below:

You can't judge the movie as fascist apologism because the story had to play out in a certain way. Batman had to be good. Bane had to be bad. Bane had to want to destroy everyone in order to fulfill the league of shadows plotline established in the first movie and tie the three together. Batman had to win, and as much as I would've loved it Batman couldn't actually die. As Nolan was tapping into the Zeitgeist, Bane had to be a populist pseudo-revolutionary. There is literally no other plotline you could've chosen, given the structure and themes of the first two movies and the source material.

Hell, if I'd written it I would've gone with that plotline. I would only have deviated on a few key details.

But fascist? No. If this movie was fascist it would have ended with a restoration of the previous social order: Batman would've stood truiphant over Gotham City, as their rightful protector.

That's not what happened. Batman lashed the bomb to his batwing, flew out over the water and vanished in a nuclear explosion.

Bruce Wayne was reported dead. His property was donated to the city to be use as an orphanage, and batman's arsenal was passed to Robin a working class former orphan.

The thesis of the movie was that the rich need to give up their priviledge, they need to move their property into the public sector and they need to put working-class Americans in charge of the nation. outdated institutions need to be reformed, and per Robin's moment on the bridge, police (and by implication, the military) need to question their orders and when appropriate disobey them.

Nolan isn't a fascist he's a liberal. He's an oldschool democrat.

Honestly, it's silly to expect him to be a revolutionary. He's old. He's part of the establishment. He is the 1% and his career is based around making movies to please an enrich the 1%.

Lucky for us he is a true artist as well. He understands the zeitgeist, and has done his damnedest to understand and sympathize with revolutionaries...but he's just too old, too priviledged, and too established to see eye to eye with us.

OF COURSE he only understands revolutionaries in the context of the French and Russian revolution. Of course he only understands anarchism as chaos. He's from a generation that only understands anarchy as something punkrockers say to sound edgy, and only understands communists as stalinists who want to blow everything up.

TDKR is a massively important movie. It is a brilliant reflection of the times we live in, through the eyes of the generation before us. The generation that is currently in power. I don't think that it would've been possible for the movie to be this relevant without someone like Nolan at the helm, and frankly I'm glad he was. Bane wouldn't have been nearly as successful a villain as he was without Nolan doing his damnedest to see through our eyes.

Now if only the movie hadn't been so insidiously sexist and racist.

But seriously, this is probably the least fascist Batman has ever been, with the exception of when he was an anarchist in Red Son.

[Despanan]

Oh also: another example of Nolan's liberalism: where did the poor orphans go to work? They went to Bane.

"There's work in the sewers"

Nolan is basically hitting you over the head and screaming: "Hey rich people! Pay your damn taxes and take care of the poor because if you don't you'll force them to turn to crime, and that will be your undoing!"

[Versus]

Originally Posted by Despanan

You guys are idiots.

Fascist apologism? What do you want? it's Batman. Batman is a fascist idea (Well, not necessarily fascist, but definitely conservative and authoritarian.)

Spoilers Below:

You can't judge the movie as fascist apologism because the story had to play out in a certain way. Batman had to be good. Bane had to be bad. Bane had to want to destroy everyone in order to fulfill the league of shadows plotline established in the first movie and tie the three together. Batman had to win, and as much as I would've loved it Batman couldn't actually die. As Nolan was tapping into the Zeitgeist, Bane had to be a populist pseudo-revolutionary. There is literally no other plotline you could've chosen, given the structure and themes of the first two movies and the source material.

Hell, if I'd written it I would've gone with that plotline. I would only have deviated on a few key details.

But fascist? No. If this movie was fascist it would have ended with a restoration of the previous social order: Batman would've stood truiphant over Gotham City, as their rightful protector.

That's not what happened. Batman lashed the bomb to his batwing, flew out over the water and vanished in a nuclear explosion.

Bruce Wayne was reported dead. His property was donated to the city to be use as an orphanage, and batman's arsenal was passed to Robin a working class former orphan.

The thesis of the movie was that the rich need to give up their priviledge, they need to move their property into the public sector and they need to put working-class Americans in charge of the nation. outdated institutions need to be reformed, and per Robin's moment on the bridge, police (and by implication, the military) need to question their orders and when appropriate disobey them.

Nolan isn't a fascist he's a liberal. He's an oldschool democrat.

Honestly, it's silly to expect him to be a revolutionary. He's old. He's part of the establishment. He is the 1% and his career is based around making movies to please an enrich the 1%.

Lucky for us he is a true artist as well. He understands the zeitgeist, and has done his damnedest to understand and sympathize with revolutionaries...but he's just too old, too priviledged, and too established to see eye to eye with us.

OF COURSE he only understands revolutionaries in the context of the French and Russian revolution. Of course he only understands anarchism as chaos. He's from a generation that only understands anarchy as something punkrockers say to sound edgy, and only understands communists as stalinists who want to blow everything up.

TDKR is a massively important movie. It is a brilliant reflection of the times we live in, through the eyes of the generation before us. The generation that is currently in power. I don't think that it would've been possible for the movie to be this relevant without someone like Nolan at the helm, and frankly I'm glad he was. Bane wouldn't have been nearly as successful a villain as he was without Nolan doing his damnedest to see through our eyes.

Now if only the movie hadn't been so insidiously sexist and racist.

But seriously, this is probably the least fascist Batman has ever been, with the exception of when he was an anarchist in Red Son.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Despanan

You guys are idiots.

Fascist apologism? What do you want? it's Batman. Batman is a fascist idea (Well, not necessarily fascist, but definitely conservative and authoritarian.)

Batman had to be good.

Its hard to make a Cracker von Patriarch who beats up poor people sympathetic, which is why more often than not nowadays in comics, he's not fighting ordinary citizens, he's fighting superpowered villains or supernatural beings. Granted I'm more into the Bat legacy characters but I haven't read a "beat up a thug" plotline in some time. Even in Detective Comics, Joker was supernatural in the last arc. In this way comics aren't exactly authoritarian so much as the plotline usually goes "We are too ill-equipped to take down these super power beings! If only another, benevolent super powered being was around to help us out!" or "Aliens are invading! Our technology is useless! If only..." and so on and so forth. DC particularly likes to push the "we protect from sueprpowered baddies, but the real hero is YOU, ordinary citizen." thing.



The last time I remember seeing Batman beating up a thug was in Batwoman: Elegy when he saves Kate in an alley in that very cliche, obligatory way, but was extremely secondary to the point that she needed that encounter to get inspiration to be Batwoman. And since, she's only fought supernatural creatures.

Even with that, Bruce Wayne is often written as an asshole (Frank Miller Batman is the hyperbole version, but even more recently, he was a pretty big prick in Batman: Noel) who few people genuinely like or even get along with (he and Clark Kent were really good friends in the previous continuity, but they clashed a lot) and frequently its questioned whether he should be doing what he does at all, or if he's a necessary evil, or if he's genuinely a hero or psycho. No one can seem to make up their mind on what he is. The only Batman comic I read where he seemed pretty mentally healthy and good was Batman: Holy Terror, the first Elseworld, where he did find peace with his parents' death and became a minister, and only becomes Batman when he finds out his parents were actually assassinated by the government.

ETA: Actually, Lex Luthor is probably one of the best non-powered villains, and one of the reasons why he's so fricken hard to destroy is because he's horded an incredible amount of wealth and was even President for a while. In Villains United, he and Talia work together to unite all the villains against the Justice League after they lobotomize a villain in a really shitty way. One of the best lines in it for me was when Catman punched Green Arrow and says how they should start acting more like heroes, because the difference between hero and villain was becoming hard to see. Easily, a movie can be made like that.

[Despanan]

It's funny that you'd mention Frank Miller's work as a positive example here, Saya considering that the man is, if not an outright fascist, certainly errs on the side of fascism both artistically and personally.

There is a strong case that the morally questionable Batman of Miller's world because Miller really thinks actions heroic. It's highly likely he's writing his own power-fantasy not a study of a psychopath.

In any case, I meant "good" in the sense that he had to be the hero and the audience had to sympathize with him. This is batman we're talking about, not superman. He's a dark character.

Versus, please feel free to keep using gifs in the place of actual arguments. I suspect it saves us both time and energy.

[CuckooTuli]

Originally Posted by Despanan

You guys are idiots.

Fascist apologism? What do you want? it's Batman. Batman is a fascist idea (Well, not necessarily fascist, but definitely conservative and authoritarian.)

Spoilers Below:

You can't judge the movie as fascist apologism because the story had to play out in a certain way. Batman had to be good. Bane had to be bad. Bane had to want to destroy everyone in order to fulfill the league of shadows plotline established in the first movie and tie the three together. Batman had to win, and as much as I would've loved it Batman couldn't actually die. As Nolan was tapping into the Zeitgeist, Bane had to be a populist pseudo-revolutionary. There is literally no other plotline you could've chosen, given the structure and themes of the first two movies and the source material.

Hell, if I'd written it I would've gone with that plotline. I would only have deviated on a few key details.

But fascist? No. If this movie was fascist it would have ended with a restoration of the previous social order: Batman would've stood truiphant over Gotham City, as their rightful protector.

That's not what happened. Batman lashed the bomb to his batwing, flew out over the water and vanished in a nuclear explosion.

Bruce Wayne was reported dead. His property was donated to the city to be use as an orphanage, and batman's arsenal was passed to Robin a working class former orphan.

The thesis of the movie was that the rich need to give up their priviledge, they need to move their property into the public sector and they need to put working-class Americans in charge of the nation. outdated institutions need to be reformed, and per Robin's moment on the bridge, police (and by implication, the military) need to question their orders and when appropriate disobey them.

Nolan isn't a fascist he's a liberal. He's an oldschool democrat.

Honestly, it's silly to expect him to be a revolutionary. He's old. He's part of the establishment. He is the 1% and his career is based around making movies to please an enrich the 1%.

Lucky for us he is a true artist as well. He understands the zeitgeist, and has done his damnedest to understand and sympathize with revolutionaries...but he's just too old, too priviledged, and too established to see eye to eye with us.

OF COURSE he only understands revolutionaries in the context of the French and Russian revolution. Of course he only understands anarchism as chaos. He's from a generation that only understands anarchy as something punkrockers say to sound edgy, and only understands communists as stalinists who want to blow everything up.

TDKR is a massively important movie. It is a brilliant reflection of the times we live in, through the eyes of the generation before us. The generation that is currently in power. I don't think that it would've been possible for the movie to be this relevant without someone like Nolan at the helm, and frankly I'm glad he was. Bane wouldn't have been nearly as successful a villain as he was without Nolan doing his damnedest to see through our eyes.

Now if only the movie hadn't been so insidiously sexist and racist.

But seriously, this is probably the least fascist Batman has ever been, with the exception of when he was an anarchist in Red Son.

I'll respond to this bag of "Waaah don't insult MAH HERO" in more depth later, but surely you can at least see that totally demonising those who put the redistribution of wealth into practise by showing them as violent animals, as the movie did, is the opposite of supporting their message? Believe it or not, it's SO possible to pay lip-service to popular ideas like "fuck the 1%" while actually espousing something different, that there's actually a whole school of literary theory dedicated to studying texts that do this; ever hear of latent content? The unconscious text? (Although I'd argue that the right-wing rhetoric of TDKR was anything but latent.) In any case, "it had to be that way because the story!" is a pretty shitty excuse for MASSIVE problems with said story.

[Versus]

Originally Posted by Despanan

Versus, please feel free to keep using gifs in the place of actual arguments. I suspect it saves us both time and energy.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around how you could ask me to precisely define privilege. I might be a little inflammatory for a while.

[AshleyO]

So because Nolan didn't write the movie for the proles and have it where batman dies and the people reclaim Gotham from the clutches of a dictator; that it's fascist apologism? Super heroes ARE fascist. Green Arrow may not count.

Anyway; I find it hilarious that you guys seem to think the D-man over here is totes going to bat for the Batman when in fact, all he did was show that it wasn't full blown fascist apologism.

I happen to agree with him. Hell, he even pointed out that the movie was at times blatantly racist and sexist.

Plus, those weren't all regular citizens in those fights. Most of them were Black Gate prisoners. I can imagine if I was thrown in the slammer for petty crimes/non-crimes with a bunch of mafia gangsters, I'd be pretty pissed too in the event of a liberation and was set free.

Again, most of the good proles WERE IN HIDING.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Versus

I'm still trying to wrap my head around how you could ask me to precisely define privilege. I might be a little inflammatory for a while.

You should always define your terms before engaging in any sort of a serious discussion Versus. That's not something to get butthurt about that's arguing 101. That's basic debate.

If I had gotten into it with someone over capitalism, I wouldn't whine when they asked me to define capitalism, I'd define capitalism. If it seemed like we weren't connecting. I'd do the same thing if we were arguing about art or religion or anything else.

It's important to define your terms in a serious discussion because it helps us to remove emotional context from the words for both parties. Because of the limitations of our language two people can often be using the same word and talkin about two completely different things.

Originally Posted by CuckooTuli

I'll respond to this bag of "Waaah don't insult MAH HERO" in more depth later,

Ad Hominem. How about you respond to my argument rather than speculating as to why I made the post I made?

but surely you can at least see that totally demonising those who put the redistribution of wealth into practise by showing them as violent animals, as the movie did, is the opposite of supporting their message?

If this had been a fuck you to the proletariat there wouldn't have been a decadent upper-class at the beginning of the movie. Gotham was not shown to be a good place to live, it was shown to be a ticking time bomb, a powder-keg of corruption. Bane did so well because he had a point, and because the corrupt in Gotham made it easy for him to. In alot of ways post-DK Gotham proved the league of shadows right.

Believe it or not, it's SO possible to pay lip-service to popular ideas like "fuck the 1%" while actually espousing something different, that there's actually a whole school of literary theory dedicated to studying texts that do this; ever hear of latent content? The unconscious text?

I'm a fucking writer, Cock. Of course I'm aware of that. It's one of my favorite things about art.

(Although I'd argue that the right-wing rhetoric of TDKR was anything but latent.) In any case, "it had to be that way because the story!" is a pretty shitty excuse for MASSIVE problems with said story.

There's a difference between a story having "MASSIVE problems" and a story who's thesis you disagree with. Hell I disagree with the movie's thesis, but that doesn't make it a bad movie. Art SHOULD challenge the reader, and that includes us. As annoying as it is, even when there's a good reason to have a revolution. Even when revolting is the right and necessary we still have to worry about people like Bane: Charismatic authoritarian "stalinists" who fly the flags of revolution in order to gain power for themselves. Like it or not T
that is a legitimate concern for anyone, and while I come to a different conclusion than Nolan, I can easily see his point of view.

This isn't supposed to be a political diatribe, it's a movie about a rich guy in a bat costume beating up a rhoided-out dude in a luchador mask. The political themes are secondary to that. Sure you could do things to make the movie more proletarian or more anarchist, but as soon as that starts to take away from "and then the Luchador gets hit in the face with a boomerang shaped like a bat, gets really super pissed off and throws a car at the dipshit in the cape" any writer worth his salt should cut it. The politics need to serve the story and not the other way around.

You could make this story more about the proletariat, say kill batman halfway through and have the people rise up against Bane and save the day, but then it's not a batman movie.

[Versus]

Originally Posted by Despanan

You should always define your terms before engaging in any sort of a serious discussion Versus. That's not something to get butthurt about that's arguing 101. That's basic debate.

If I had gotten into it with someone over capitalism, I wouldn't whine when they asked me to define capitalism, I'd define capitalism. If it seemed like we weren't connecting. I'd do the same thing if we were arguing about art or religion or anything else.

It's important to define your terms in a serious discussion because it helps us to remove emotional context from the words for both parties. Because of the limitations of our language two people can often be using the same word and talkin about two completely different things.

Condescension masked as benevolent wisdom is my favorite. The best part is that it doesn't even fucking occur to you why it would piss me off for you to ask me what privilege means to me. But sure. I'm butthurt and whining. Whatever. Carry the fuck on, I think I'm about to write you off anyway.

[Despanan]

Just noticed this:

Originally Posted by Saya

I haven't seen it yet, I think I'm gong to wait until DVD (seriously, three hours in a theatre? Unless its Tolkien, no.)

Does anyone else think it's Hi-goddamn-larious that Saya has problems with TDKR's narrow view of criminals but she's totally down with spending three hours in the theatre to watch J.R.R. "literally-every-single-black-person-is-evil" Tolkien?

If we're talking about fascist themes, Tolkien has a whole race of always chaotic evil beings. The heroes are a race of apolitical petite bourgeoisie Tories who extoll traditional conservative values and help to restore the monarchy by dropping technology in a volcano on the advice of divinely-appointed bearded white patriarchs who somehow know what's best for everyone.

I love Lord of the Rings, but if we're talking about unconscious fascist apologism and casual white supremacy Nolan PALES in comparison to Tolkien.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Versus

Condescension masked as benevolent wisdom is my favorite. The best part is that it doesn't even fucking occur to you why it would piss me off for you to ask me what privilege means to me. But sure. I'm butthurt and whining. Whatever. Carry the fuck on, I think I'm about to write you off anyway.

Benevolent wisdom nothing, if you refuse to define your terms because it makes you mad that I can't read your mind, you shouldn't be arguing. Period.

Of course it occurs to me as to why it would piss you off, but that doesn't mean that it's something you shouldn't do. I'd rather piss you off and have our arguments go in a productive direction, than have us be cool with each other, but failing to communicate.

When I talk to you about something like this, I try to turn off "Despanan" and stick to pure logic, specifically because this is an emotionally charged issue. If you'd prefer you can go ahead and call me a whole bunch of names, you can make speculations about my character, and you can get super outraged about me not tiptoeing around your sensibilities, but at the end of the day this is about facts, not about how you or I feel.

If you can't do that, feel free to write me off. It's no skin off of my nose and honestly, I get the feeling you did it a long time ago.

[Solumina]

I'm not getting into the politics of the movie, I don't think you need to in order to say why the movie sucked, it was poorly written (both in terms of the story as well as the individual lines), not a single one of the main actors delivered a compelling performance, and the directing was extremely heavy handed.

I do think that the underlying themes were problematic and disagreeable but they also weren't handled well. There was no subtlety, no finesse, everything was just right there in your face, and that works in your typical superhero movie but this was trying to be so much more and it just didn't work.

I'll elaborate later if you want, I'm using my phone now so long posts are kind of obnoxious.

[Despanan]

I'm honestly curious to hear you elaborate Sol, so please do.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Despanan

It's funny that you'd mention Frank Miller's work as a positive example here, Saya considering that the man is, if not an outright fascist, certainly errs on the side of fascism both artistically and personally.

There is a strong case that the morally questionable Batman of Miller's world because Miller really thinks actions heroic. It's highly likely he's writing his own power-fantasy not a study of a psychopath.

Much as I dislike Miller, I highly doubt he thinks forcing little boys to eat rats heroic. His work hasn't been good in a long time, but I can see what he's trying to do when he makes Batman so hyperbolic. Kick-Ass pulled off the same concept a lot better, in that it was clear that Big Daddy was unbalance and endangering his child (who is like his Robin, who is now in the comics Bruce's very young son with Talia, and in previous continuity he adopted Cassandra Cain, one of the Batgirls and now the Batman of Hong Kong. After two Robin "deaths," it didn't stop Bruce!)

In any case, I meant "good" in the sense that he had to be the hero and the audience had to sympathize with him. This is batman we're talking about, not superman. He's a dark character.

I think Nolan utterly failed in the first two movies to make Bruce Wayne sympathetic. I couldn't care less about him, and got impatient when his scenes would drag. Go back to the Joker! The only reason I rooted for Batman at all is because it was like, "oh, yeah, I suppose Gotham shouldn't be destroyed by a ridiculous giant microwave. MICROWAVES DONT WORK LIKE THAT". or "I'm enjoying the Joker, but do not agree with him and he should be stopped." I can't relate to an obscenely rich CvP who just can't heal from his parents dying.

Does anyone else think it's Hi-goddamn-larious that Saya has problems with TDKR's narrow view of criminals but she's totally down with spending three hours in the theatre to watch J.R.R. "literally-every-single-black-person-is-evil" Tolkien?

You know that the big interpretation was that it was an allegory for WWI, right? Of which Tolkien was a veteran? Or it might be a Christian allegory, as he was religious?

Which he denied.

"I should like to say something here with reference to the many opinions or guesses that I have received or have read concerning the motives and meaning of the tale. The prime motive was the desire of a tale-teller to try his hand at a really long story that would hold the attention of readers, amuse them, delight them, and at times maybe excite them or deeply move them. As a guide I had only my own feelings for what is appealing or moving, (...)"
Deeply move! That's an essential point about the epic.
"As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical. As the story grew it put down roots (into the past) and threw out unexpected branches

Dude also straight up hated allegory. He would probably not have liked Nolan.

Other arrangements could be devised according to the tastes or views of those who like allegory or topical reference. But I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.
An author cannot of course remain wholly unaffected by his experience, but the ways in which a story-germ uses the soil of experience are extremely complex, and attempts to define the process are at best guesses from evidence that is inadequate and ambiguous.

[Despanan]

On the subject of Miller, it's not so much that he's trying to tell a good, nuanced story and failing, it's that he's pretty obviously a conservative, racist, misogynistic, fascist. For evidence of this, look at what he wrote about occupy a few months ago: (I know you don't like Occupy, but that aside his reaction should key you in to what sort of values he holds):

http://frankmillerink.com/

As for Tolkien, I know he did not like allegory, and did not intend for his work to be taken as anything other than a story. I think if you asked Nolan if his batman films were allegorical he'd probably also reject that idea.

The fact is that regardless of the Author's intent, the author's mindset creeps into the work they do subconsciously. I recommend reading this essay on Tolkien's work by Michael Moorecock, which among other things, has the best unintentionally hilarious title EVER:

Epic Pooh: http://www.revolutionsf.com/article.php?id=953

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Despanan

On the subject of Miller, it's not so much that he's trying to tell a good, nuanced story and failing, it's that he's pretty obviously a conservative, racist, misogynistic, fascist. For evidence of this, look at what he wrote about occupy a few months ago: (I know you don't like Occupy, but that aside his reaction should key you in to what sort of values he holds):

http://frankmillerink.com/

Dude, I know he produces really racist fascist shit like Holy Terror, but what I'm saying is I don't think that's behind Batman and Robin Allstars where he kills cops and kidnaps poor Dick and makes him eat rats. Batman is clearly psycho there and not meant to be heroic, he's off his rocker.

As for Tolkien, I know he did not like allegory, and did not intend for his work to be taken as anything other than a story. I think if you asked Nolan if his batman films were allegorical he'd probably also reject that idea.

I don't think that's so, one of the things I don't like about Nolan is how his characters explain the themes and allegories and character analysis, he doesn't like things left up to the audience to interpret as they will, like Tolkien wanted. He's overly clear on how the movies should be read. Part of the reason I liked Inception so much was that the ending left itself open to interpretation, unlike the Batman films I felt Nolan trusted me for once to make up my own mind and interpret the movie how I wanted to.

The fact is that regardless of the Author's intent, the author's mindset creeps into the work they do subconsciously. I recommend reading this essay on Tolkien's work by Michael Moorecock, which among other things, has the best unintentionally hilarious title EVER:

Epic Pooh: http://www.revolutionsf.com/article.php?id=953

That's true, but for his time and especially for a white man from South Africa, Tolkien was incredibly anti-racist. He had some scathing things to say about Nazi Germany and its racism, and went on to speak out against apartheid. I think he would be horrified to know that fascists did relate to his work, but the point of his work was that everybody and anybody could relate to it. And even with the scenes with the men from the south, through Sam he makes clear that those men aren't evil, and like in All Quiet on the Western Front, Sam wonders who is worrying about them at home and what convictions led them to leave their home and travel so far. I read shit that's read today that show less empathy for enemy troops.

And even then, and its bad I have to explain this, its okay to like problematic things. I don't care if you like Dark Knight Rises, as long as you recognize how problematic it is and respect that for some people, its too problematic to enjoy. I like some things that are problematic! I used to play World Of Warcraft that is very blatant that Orcs are Africans, Trolls are black Caribbeans, the Tauren are aboriginals, etc. There are things that I can critique as problematic and still enjoy, but there are other things I can critique and not be able to enjoy, its taken me a long time to get over Mass Effect leaving out male romances intentionally, its only now that the third one is out and they're FINALLY allowing it that I can feel fine going back to play it. Bad writing aside, I'll never be able to enjoy Twilight because of how misogynistic it is. I think people are perfectly right to say WoW is way too problematic for them to enjoy, even if I might play it again someday and I don't think overall its a bad game.

[Solumina]

Originally Posted by Despanan

I'm honestly curious to hear you elaborate Sol, so please do.

Okay I'm assuming that you don't need me to elaborate on the crappy dialogue so I'll talk about a couple of really specific things that bothered me and that I think were handled very, very poorly.

Catwoman became the voice of the poor, I have no idea how or why that happened. She is a high end thief, not part of the working class, she may have grown up poor but that isn't really clear in this movie, she is portrayed as currently being working class and a thief like her would be pulling in some serious cash, not on Bruce's level but one good heist would make her more money than many Gotham citizens would see in their entire lives, hell one small heist would be more than the cops (who seem to be portrayed as the movie's equivalent of the middle class as they at least have stable incomes and seem to be making more than minimum wage) see in a month. If you want someone to represent the everyman she just ain't the right gal for the job.

Another issue is how Bruce becomes "poor". First off does he really not have anything set aside that can't just be easily converted into pork futures or whatever? Things like furniture or art can be sold for money, not just left to sit around the house, you can't tell me that he doesn't have significant value in his stuff, but then again his stuff is being taken away. Why is all of his shit being taken away, did he finance everything? That wouldn't make sense, I'm pretty sure all of that furniture has been there since his parents' days, at the latest, and he had those cars in the first movie, back when his company was rolling in dough, and financing only costs you money. While we are talking about things being taken away or not why is a big deal made of him being able to keep the house? Of course he is allowed to keep the fucking house, it has been in the family for generations, I'm guessing it has been paid off, they can't repo shit that you own outright.

But then at the end he and Selina have plenty of money to start a wonderful life in Italy. Yes they both get a fresh start and I get that but they seem to be living pretty well. Maybe Selina just made a big score, but shouldn't Bruce take issue with living off of dirty money? Also how fucking cheesy and cliche of an ending was that? I mean really, Bruce and Selina get a happily ever after in Italy. I don't care about their sunshine and smiles. The bomb scare and Bane's control of the city may be over but the city is still a mess, you don't just bounce back from that kind of thing, especially when one of your largest corporations just went under (or is at least doing extremely poorly), Gordon was outed as a lier and lost his professional credibility, they lost Dent as their shining symbol to rally behind, and the two biggest philanthropists are no longer around to prop up social programs, this is not a story that should have an easy, happy ending and the ending should be about Gotham.

There is plenty more but eh I think that's enough and it isn't like I could possibly list everything wrong with it, that would take ages.

[Versus]

Originally Posted by Despanan

Benevolent wisdom nothing, if you refuse to define your terms because it makes you mad that I can't read your mind, you shouldn't be arguing. Period.

Of course it occurs to me as to why it would piss you off, but that doesn't mean that it's something you shouldn't do. I'd rather piss you off and have our arguments go in a productive direction, than have us be cool with each other, but failing to communicate.

When I talk to you about something like this, I try to turn off "Despanan" and stick to pure logic, specifically because this is an emotionally charged issue. If you'd prefer you can go ahead and call me a whole bunch of names, you can make speculations about my character, and you can get super outraged about me not tiptoeing around your sensibilities, but at the end of the day this is about facts, not about how you or I feel.

If you can't do that, feel free to write me off. It's no skin off of my nose and honestly, I get the feeling you did it a long time ago.

1) I don't need you to /splain the secret knowledge of an argument or a debate to me and you're not imparting some kind of epiphany that I had the misfortune of being ignorant of. I'm old enough and intelligent enough to know how contextual language can shape a person's perception of something's meaning, and you fucking know this. I know that I'm not the brightest crayon in the box, but because of my experience with white privilege, when you do that it's like you're belittling me by stooping down to my level to make me understand like I'm a fucking child. The only thing that I get from you doing that is a sense that you're trying to reinforce yourself from how fucked up it is when you completely dismiss and ignore something that would bother me. It's a bag of tricks that I am painfully aware of, so please cut the bullshit and talk to me like we're equals before you say anything else to me.

2) My frustration is human and there's nothing wrong with it. It's great that you can push whatever the hell a "Despanan" is aside and try talk to me logically. Well, I can't. I'm not you, and it pisses me the hell off when people tell me how to deal with what I perceive as oppression. Everybody does it at work where getting upset isn't worth anything, so I'm sure as shit not going to when I only have an ally to gain. I'm not throwing a fucking temper tantrum when explaining privilege over and over and over again annoys me to the point where I throw my hands into the air, just start to just say "Fuck it!" and count some people as "lost" to me. Explaining what I now recognize as privilege is something I've tried to do throughout my life, albeit in a progressively more constructed way, so you'll have to forgive me when a couple instances of somebody who I expect to fucking understand throws me through a loop. I've been an ass hat around here for long enough for me to feel like everybody here, and you especially, should know what I mean when I say "privilege." Anger is how I cope with shit like this in life and I think it's fair to say that everybody on this forum knows that, so I don't know why you expect anything different from me when you do the same shit that makes me want to pull my hair out as the random dumb fucks who I legitimately get angry at.

Really, I'm not even angry. I posted a passive aggressive gif and haven't said a fucking thing to you. I knew that Saya would cover anything I had to say about the new batman and more, if you didn't know. I think I've done that like, twice now? I remember Sternn did the same thing as you, once. I even made a whole separate thread and everything. Somebody who I can't fucking stand or respect told me how to deal with shit and I got another boner for MissCheyenne. But hey, I might start whining any moment by going all caps lock and bolding or italicizing really big size seven words like I do when people say shit worthy of a little Versus injected obnoxious. Call out this fucking time bomb before it blows up in your face.

[CuckooTuli]

Originally Posted by Despanan

You guys are idiots.

You’re right, it’s immeasurably stupid to analyse the ideology of texts beyond their surface meanings. Please, O Wise One, forgive me my folly.

Originally Posted by Despanan

You can't judge the movie as fascist apologism because the story had to play out in a certain way. Batman had to be good. Bane had to be bad.

My criticisms weren’t about the fact that the goodie was good and the baddie bad, so that’s moot. You might have noticed that the main element I accused of fascist apologism was the representation of The Police and The People as allegorical representations of good and evil (and they really did – c.f. the fallen police officers as the two groups rushed each other, the police apparently not shooting back. You’re seriously telling me I shouldn’t be interested in that in an ideological sense? And you’re a writer? Huh). What bothered me was the depiction of the people of Gotham as a whole.

Originally Posted by Despanan

The thesis of the movie was that the rich need to give up their priviledge, they need to move their property into the public sector and they need to put working-class Americans in charge of the nation. outdated institutions need to be reformed, and per Robin's moment on the bridge, police (and by implication, the military) need to question their orders and when appropriate disobey them.

Nolan did throw in a couple of brief lines about how the privileged were about to get theirs when the “storm came”, but the exploitative behaviour of the few wasn’t really gone into in any depth that made the chaos Gotham falls into understandable. The excesses of the 1% were much more muted and understated than the contrastingly-sensationalised excesses of the mobs (and, as Solumina mentioned, first voiced by Catwoman, who was an antagonist, morally suspect at that point, and ill-placed to speak for the poor). It was straight up condemnation, with no exploration of poverty and inequality to give us empathy with the anarchistic urge, even before anarchy tears the city down.

Actually I’d say that the movie paid lip-service to this element, before jumping into: “… and the moral is, most humans are barbarians who need the police force to stop them from smashing up everything with indiscriminate animalism. And good citizens are not only in the minority, but are mostly cowards who just hide indoors. Face it, you would crash and burn without the establishment to keep you safe from yourselves. Isn’t it great living in a civilized country?”

Originally Posted by Despanan

Bane had to want to destroy everyone in order to fulfill the league of shadows plotline established in the first movie and tie the three together. Batman had to win, and as much as I would've loved it Batman couldn't actually die. As Nolan was tapping into the Zeitgeist, Bane had to be a populist pseudo-revolutionary.

To repeat, that’s all fine, but did the citizenry have to be so dupable and/or bestial? Couldn’t we have seen just a few revolutionaries who were regular humans trying to make things better, rather than roving gangs of animals? There were no sympathetic revolutionaries among the ones seen in action. It wouldn’t have taken that much time; a few seconds here and there amidst all the mob and riot scenes.

Originally Posted by Despanan

But fascist? No. If this movie was fascist it would have ended with a restoration of the previous social order: Batman would've stood truiphant over Gotham City, as their rightful protector.
That's not what happened. Batman lashed the bomb to his batwing, flew out over the water and vanished in a nuclear explosion.

He remained, as at the end of TDK, a symbol. In this movie as in the last, it’s heavily implied that people need symbols. And this comes attached to the idea that people need to be lied to for their own good - Gordon tells Blake that the people shouldn’t know the Batman’s true identity, just as Wayne told Gordon that the people wouldn’t be able to deal with the truth about Harvey Dent at the end of TDK. Batman’s “sacrifice”/abdication doesn’t free the people from paternalistic rule, it just transfers the power back the to establishment of Gotham, in a way that involves covering up the truth about shit that affects everyone.

Did Nolan MEAN it that way? Maybe not. Does that mean it’s dumb to notice it? Fuck, no. Jesus rollerblading Christ, enjoy it despite its problems if you want, but don’t tell me they’re immaterial and not worth pointing out just because you liked the movie.

Originally Posted by Despanan

Honestly, it's silly to expect him to be a revolutionary. He's old. He's part of the establishment. He is the 1% and his career is based around making movies to please an enrich the 1%.

I’m not expecting him to be a revolutionary. I’m pointing out the problems with his blanket depiction of revolutionary movements as destructive forces, by showing them purely as the stooge of supervillains who just want to see some shit burn down.

Originally Posted by Despanan

Lucky for us he is a true artist as well. He understands the zeitgeist, and has done his damnedest to understand and sympathize with revolutionaries...but he's just too old, too priviledged, and too established to see eye to eye with us.

Originally Posted by Despanan

Hell I disagree with the movie's thesis, but that doesn't make it a bad movie.

So you DO agree that there are troubling elements of the film’s ideology. In that case, the only point we’re differing on is that I thought it sucked, was poorly written, and not as clever as it thought is was being, while you thought otherwise.

Most of your purported refutations of my reading of the movie are actually you going, “Yeah, BUT”, then telling me why you think the thing I’ve just criticized is justifiable (Nolan is rich and privileged but he did his best; Nolan is old and therefore thinks all revolutionaries are Stalinists/terrorists; Nolan is a genius). In which case, it would seem that the only real difference between us is that you enjoyed the movie despite the things you disagreed with in it and I thought it was a turkey.

The only real motivation you seem to have here is the belief that I’m overanalyzing and over-politicising something that wasn’t meant to be that political in the first place. I on the other hand think that if we analysed everything around us more, instead of patronising the creators of things we like by making exceptions for them, we’d be better at distinguishing the way things are, instead of just accepting it because it’s invisible to us. That’s one of the major aims of literary criticism, especially the political side, and it's one that I whole-heartedly agree with as an artistic AND cultural necessity.

Originally Posted by Despanan

I'm a fucking writer, Cock. Of course I'm aware of that. It's one of my favorite things about art.

Oh shit, you’re a writer? Boy do I feel foolish. There I was thinking you had to account for your opinions in debate like everyone else, when I should have been dropping to my knees and licking your writer-balls.

Newflash: the fact that I’m a writer too (published via various forums, been paid for my work and had my plays performed by regional theatre companies) is really less relevant here than the fact that being a writer doesn’t make your opinion untouchable.

[CuckooTuli]

Originally Posted by AshleyO

So because Nolan didn't write the movie for the proles and have it where batman dies and the people reclaim Gotham from the clutches of a dictator; that it's fascist apologism? Super heroes ARE fascist. Green Arrow may not count.

Anyway; I find it hilarious that you guys seem to think the D-man over here is totes going to bat for the Batman when in fact, all he did was show that it wasn't full blown fascist apologism.

I happen to agree with him. Hell, he even pointed out that the movie was at times blatantly racist and sexist.

Plus, those weren't all regular citizens in those fights. Most of them were Black Gate prisoners. I can imagine if I was thrown in the slammer for petty crimes/non-crimes with a bunch of mafia gangsters, I'd be pretty pissed too in the event of a liberation and was set free.

Again, most of the good proles WERE IN HIDING.

Jeez, if the heading of that section is really all he can focus on to the exclusion of the points made right underneath it, I could define hyperbole (and maybe while I'm at it, explain that I don't literally think my 3 year old godson could write a more structured and well-written screenplay). But the fact is, there are elements of fascist apologism. How about presenting "we the establishment reserve the right to lie to the populus whenever we decide they can't handle the truth" as the stance of the good guys? Well-known feature of the totalitarian state that the movie's thesis completely romanticises and defends. Myth over truth is an incredibly dangerous political philosophy, and if you don't think so, I can only invite you to read lots of history. (Bring tissues; you will weep.)

Again, if you think "Fuck it, it's a good movie and I liked it anyway", awesome; I wouldn't agree with the 'good' part, but there are other movies I think are better written that I'd totes have this response to. But identifying fascist elements doesn't mean I'm trying to pretend there are NO left-leaning elements to the movie - just that I didn't think these were convincingly explored, and in fact I think that in his attempt to bring these in, Nolan betrays other, far less leftie and occasionally downright fascistic ELEMENTS of the film. I acknowledged in my response to Despanan that the leftie elements he mentioned do exist; I just thought they were flimsy, and were gradually subordinated to other, occasionally troubling concerns as the story unfolded.