The Dark Knight Rises
Well, I've finally done it. I've watched The Dark Knight Rises It's fun fare, but I've not been as receptive to the Dark Knight series as many others have been. Perhaps it's simply because, like Spiderman, I'd wish someone would give the Batman franchise a little rest for now. Then again, I'm not saying that I didn't enjoy it. Rather, I'm simply not one who has yet found myself saying, "Oh my God. Christopher Nolan is a genius. This is the Star Wars of my generation," partly because Star Wars is still the Star Wars of my generation, and partly because . . . I don't know. I haven't figured it out yet.
I'm reminded as I see Bane of my late friend who could do incredible impersonations, and I can imagine in my head him doing the Bane voice right now. It's truly a shame he died before the film came out, because he was most certainly a fan of both Nolan and the Dark Knight series.
Apparently, the series has garnered considerable criticism among the left for serving as right-wing propaganda. Bane appears to be some figurehead of the Occupy movement. I'm not sure I can entirely agree. It's not necessarily "eat the rich" that Bane's character promotes. It's a personality cult he cultivates, and Occupy stridently refuses personality (and sometimes consistent messaging...frequently to others' frustration). Also, we should note that the wealthy in the film come across as useless detached fools. We might say, "Oh, dear. Killing the wealthy way seems a tad excessive," but we never shed tears for them when Bane and his mob go after them. There are no likable victims among the wealthy. Rather, we feel worse when we find out that family members were executed along with then. And, of course, we object to the kangaroo court that Bane's mob society has erected.
Yes, it is easy to see caricatures of class warfare within the film. Bane at times appears to practically parrot radical ideology, and the person who is elected as the mob court's judge looks like the nebbish sort we might expect in another life to be preaching the benefits of local cage-free eggs. Yet, the film also reveals that the people are incapable of acting without the presence of a manically-driven leader. We observe Bane to be nearly omnipresent, observing the proceedings of court trials, officiating executions of disloyal or ineffective henchmen. He's more Napoleon than Subcomandante Marcos. And yet...strangely, at the end, we're shown that his motive all along was love for a woman. (That last part seems rather difficult to fathom, since he seems more eunuch than lover.)
My point is that the series moves farther to the right than many critics have expressed. The series isn't saying, "Look at Bruce Wayne. He's a rich guy. See? Not all rich guys are bad. We need neoliberalism and we need to preserve the Bush tax cuts so that wealthy playboys can save us from evildoers." Rather, the series suggests to me an appeal to the aristocracy. The title itself evokes this: the Dark Knight. He's a knight. Gotham City is his fiefdom, upon which he is allowed to determine whether it is ready for nuclear fusion technology, and over which he's allowed to ride roughshod in pursuit of his enemies. He has a butler and a staff and a manor that looks like it was built during the reign of Luis XIV. Like British nobility, he's not outwardly concerned with wealth. Yes, in the series, he goes broke, but the lack of money is seen as a temporary inconvenience. A gentleman never talks publicly about matters of finance; that's what his subordinates are expected to do. Even without money, he still has his legacy. He still holds to the ways of his quasi-spiritual Shaolin warrior training. His vehicles, like loyal steeds, always remain on hand always armed and fueled and ready to go (how this can be, we don't know). Alfred, the Commissioner, and others, serve as loyal vassels, batmen, squires, servants, etc. The film seems to attempt at inscribing Arthurian legend onto American culture. Even though, technically, we banished royalty and the aristocracy, these trappings of the Old World seem to remain present in our pop culture, and this film is one such example of this.
So, in this sense, the film isn't "far right"; it's far, far, far, far right.
Now, is the film saying that capitalism must be rescued by the aristocracy? I don't think so.
Other than that, what can I say? After all is said and done, I still did enjoy Bane as a villan. Also, I wanted to know about the voice Tom Hardy used for Bane's character. It turns out this guy in the video was the source of the inspiration:
A fascinating people, the Irish Travellers. I'd like to know more about them. What I do know of them comes from watching Snatch not a good source of info) and by reading horror stories by outsiders who don't care much for their presence. But, for me, this simply whets my curiosity. The idea of a semi-nomadic people living within the European landscape where most people are already well settled in their cities and towns...it's fascinating.
And those are my thoughts at 1:30 this Christmas morning.
I'm reminded as I see Bane of my late friend who could do incredible impersonations, and I can imagine in my head him doing the Bane voice right now. It's truly a shame he died before the film came out, because he was most certainly a fan of both Nolan and the Dark Knight series.
Apparently, the series has garnered considerable criticism among the left for serving as right-wing propaganda. Bane appears to be some figurehead of the Occupy movement. I'm not sure I can entirely agree. It's not necessarily "eat the rich" that Bane's character promotes. It's a personality cult he cultivates, and Occupy stridently refuses personality (and sometimes consistent messaging...frequently to others' frustration). Also, we should note that the wealthy in the film come across as useless detached fools. We might say, "Oh, dear. Killing the wealthy way seems a tad excessive," but we never shed tears for them when Bane and his mob go after them. There are no likable victims among the wealthy. Rather, we feel worse when we find out that family members were executed along with then. And, of course, we object to the kangaroo court that Bane's mob society has erected.
Yes, it is easy to see caricatures of class warfare within the film. Bane at times appears to practically parrot radical ideology, and the person who is elected as the mob court's judge looks like the nebbish sort we might expect in another life to be preaching the benefits of local cage-free eggs. Yet, the film also reveals that the people are incapable of acting without the presence of a manically-driven leader. We observe Bane to be nearly omnipresent, observing the proceedings of court trials, officiating executions of disloyal or ineffective henchmen. He's more Napoleon than Subcomandante Marcos. And yet...strangely, at the end, we're shown that his motive all along was love for a woman. (That last part seems rather difficult to fathom, since he seems more eunuch than lover.)
My point is that the series moves farther to the right than many critics have expressed. The series isn't saying, "Look at Bruce Wayne. He's a rich guy. See? Not all rich guys are bad. We need neoliberalism and we need to preserve the Bush tax cuts so that wealthy playboys can save us from evildoers." Rather, the series suggests to me an appeal to the aristocracy. The title itself evokes this: the Dark Knight. He's a knight. Gotham City is his fiefdom, upon which he is allowed to determine whether it is ready for nuclear fusion technology, and over which he's allowed to ride roughshod in pursuit of his enemies. He has a butler and a staff and a manor that looks like it was built during the reign of Luis XIV. Like British nobility, he's not outwardly concerned with wealth. Yes, in the series, he goes broke, but the lack of money is seen as a temporary inconvenience. A gentleman never talks publicly about matters of finance; that's what his subordinates are expected to do. Even without money, he still has his legacy. He still holds to the ways of his quasi-spiritual Shaolin warrior training. His vehicles, like loyal steeds, always remain on hand always armed and fueled and ready to go (how this can be, we don't know). Alfred, the Commissioner, and others, serve as loyal vassels, batmen, squires, servants, etc. The film seems to attempt at inscribing Arthurian legend onto American culture. Even though, technically, we banished royalty and the aristocracy, these trappings of the Old World seem to remain present in our pop culture, and this film is one such example of this.
So, in this sense, the film isn't "far right"; it's far, far, far, far right.
Now, is the film saying that capitalism must be rescued by the aristocracy? I don't think so.
Other than that, what can I say? After all is said and done, I still did enjoy Bane as a villan. Also, I wanted to know about the voice Tom Hardy used for Bane's character. It turns out this guy in the video was the source of the inspiration:
Click to viewA fascinating people, the Irish Travellers. I'd like to know more about them. What I do know of them comes from watching Snatch not a good source of info) and by reading horror stories by outsiders who don't care much for their presence. But, for me, this simply whets my curiosity. The idea of a semi-nomadic people living within the European landscape where most people are already well settled in their cities and towns...it's fascinating.
And those are my thoughts at 1:30 this Christmas morning.