The Dark Knight Rises - A Libertarian and Anti-Marxist film.

[Drop_It_Like_Its_Hoppe]

Regarding the politics of the film, I interpret it as a Classically Liberal, or Libertarian film.

The villain, Bane,
seems to be a Marxist-esque Revolutionary, similar to Che Guevara,
seducing the people of Gotham (particularly the lower/middle classes)
with collectivist rhetoric, to revolt against the higher classes, and to
take the city back for themselves, as it belongs to 'the people'.

So Bane's rhetoric does seem to parallel Marxism, as he wants to...

a) Smash the state

b) Eat the rich

c) Make everyone 'equal'

d) Give Gotham to 'the people', so it belongs to everyone (destruction of private property)

It
seems that Nolan predicted the 'Occupy' movement that happened across
America, which had similar values (although not as radical, and
sometimes convoluted and confused in its message). The screenplay was written before occupy was a big thing, but the parallels are there.

For instance, when Bane takes over Gotham, many take to his message and begin to ransack the homes of wealthy people. One particular scene has them ransacking a home, where Catwoman says "This was someone's home." To which her friend responds, "Now its everyone's home."

However, what makes Bane's intentions interesting is his understanding of its purpose, as he concedes in the Pit when talking to Bruce, "I
learned here that there can be no true despair without hope. So, as I
terrorize Gotham, I will feed its people hope to poison their souls. I
will let them believe they can survive so that you can watch them
clamoring over each other to "stay in the sun."

Bane
has a bomb which he plans to destroy Gotham with, but he knows that this society for which he has created in Gotham is
unsustainable, and will find that the people themselves will destroy
each other, before the bomb is even necessary. However, the bomb still
has its designated time for which to explode, and this bomb is very much
a metaphor for the inevitable result of such a Marxist society...
destruction... it is like a "ticking time bomb" so to speak.

However,
while the film does characterize Marxism as 'bad', this does not mean that the film
panders to the 'status quo' of America's statism, it is not so
black-and-white.

This theme can be seen in the characters of
Gordon and John Blake, two good cops that are part of a system that
undermines justice, it is corrupt, and they come to realize this.

As this dialogue between Gordon and Blake suggests...

John Blake: Those men locked up for eight years in Blackgate, and denied parole under the Dent Act, based on a lie?

Jim Gordon: Gotham needed a hero...

John Blake: It needs it now more than ever. You betrayed everything you stood for.

Jim
Gordon: There's a point, far out there when the structures fail you,
and the rules aren't weapons anymore, they're... shackles letting the
bad guy get ahead. One day... you may face such a moment of crisis. And
in that moment, I hope you have a friend like I did, to plunge their
hands into the filth so that you can keep yours clean!

John Blake: Your hands look plenty filthy to me, Commissioner.

This
is in reference to the Dent Act, which essentially turned Gotham into a
police state, founded upon a lie. Gordon was frustrated with this lie,
and this is seen with his struggle to come to grips with his own
inclusion in it. He has succumbed to the corrupt system.

Bruce
has been a recluse for 8 years, hiding within the walls of his home,
because no one seemed to need Batman anymore, they just relied on the
state to 'protect' them. I see Bruce's 'imprisonment' within his home as
a parallel to the 'imprisonment' of Gotham's people within the walls of
the state.

As Bruce says in Batman Begins, "People need dramatic examples to shake them out of apathy". The people of Gotham had become apathetic.

Batman
represents personal responsibility, not reliance, not cowardice. Bruce
gave up, and hid away in his home. Gotham gave up, and relied on the
state. Personal responsibility gave up.

But then Batman comes back, as Bruce once again finds the strength to fight for Gotham.

At the end of this whole
debacle, we see a tattered American flag, and a 'civil war' of sorts
between the 'state' and 'the people' (whom have been taken in by Bane's
Marxist philosophy), while Batman, Gordon, and Blake are caught in the
middle of this war.

Bruce ends his term as Batman, Gordon ends
up resigning as Commisioner, and John Blake quits the force (he throws away his badge
in frustration). Blake no longer wants to be part of such a system, one
that undermines liberty, and justice. He sees the state for what it
truly is... servitude.

So while Bane was right in that the state
(Gotham) is corrupt, and that injustice is prevalent within it, his
intentions and solution were no better.

At the end of the film, Gordon asks John Blake if he will coming back to the police force, but he declines, and responds, "You were right, about the structures becoming shackles, and I can't take it... the injustice."

Blake,
on the other hand, understands what is needed, he understands that
individual liberty is what is most important. He takes up the role of
'Batman' (personal responsibility), and RISES, as an individual, taking
actions into his own hands; not because he must, but because he can. As Batman, he symbolizes personal responsibility, and he is to inspire people to be better. 

But of course, 'Batman' is not meant to inspire people to put on a cowl and become a vigilante, that would be much too literal of an interpretation. In the previous film, The Dark Knight, a number of people do 'copy-cat' Batman, and Bruce says "That's not what I had in mind when I said I wanted to inspire people".

Batman is meant to be a symbol for people to be good, to take personal responsibility. So Blake becoming Batman shouldn't be seen a literally him becoming the vigilante detective, but him maintaining that symbol of good, and personal responsibility, to keep that torch aflame.

And as Bruce says in Batman Begins, "As a man I'm flesh and blood, I can be ignored, I can be destroyed, but as a
symbol, as a symbol I can be incorruptible, I can be everlasting"

 

 

 

[MPStewart]

SPOILERS

 

I like your interpretation.  I remember leaving the theatre when the movie first came out feeling somewhat unsatisfied about this movie.  Maybe it was a hangover from the previous movie's surveillance state lovefest.  Also Bruce Wayne's line of work--government "defense" contractor--really irked me.  But I do understand the storytelling reason for the latter.  You pointed out the transformation of John Blake (who I believe will become Nightwing)--I think the transformation of Catwoman is powerful as well.  She's first shown warning Bruce Wayne that people will literally steal his wealth from him because he has been "hoarding" it from them (lay off the Keynes, Selina!).  Her growing recognition that property is important (in the scene you referenced) and her decision to save Batman at the end show how she has come to value virtue and life more than her "good name". 

A couple annoying things about this movie that I just couldn't get out of my mind:  the cops emerging from the tunnels after a few months--shaven, relatively clean, and perfectly willing to walk, unarmed toward violent henchmen wielding semi-automatic rifles.  The clean streets of Gotham (hey, maybe a private service started to replace the city trash department?).  Women walking around unscathed while thousands of imprisoned criminals were loosed into the streets. 

One thing I like about the superhero genre (and Batman in particular because he is "realistic") is that superheroes are rarely a part of the state.  Batman is a private actor using his resources to benefit millions of people in the City of Gotham.  And, holy Adam Smith's invisible hand, he's doing it to revenge his parents and gain peace of mind from his childhood trauma and guilt!

 

[Drop_It_Like_Its_Hoppe]

the previous movie's surveillance state lovefest.

Keep in mind that Bruce Wayne/Batman is not written in this series to be a perfect character, but one that makes difficult ethical choices we can critique. The surveillance system bit in The Dark Knight was an obvious commentary on The Patriot Act (and 'big brother' in general).

Here is the diaglogue between Batman and Lucius in that scene the system is introduced...

Batman:
Beautiful, isn't it?


Lucius Fox:
Beautiful... unethical... dangerous. You've turned every cellphone in Gotham into a microphone.


Batman:
And a high-frequency generator-receiver.


Lucius Fox:
You took my sonar concept and applied it to every phone in the city.
With half the city feeding you sonar, you can image all of Gotham. This
is *wrong*.


Batman:
I've gotta find this man, Lucius.


Lucius Fox:
At what cost?


Batman:
The database is null-key encrypted. It can only be accessed by one person.


Lucius Fox:
This is too much power for one person.


Batman:
That's why I gave it to you. Only you can use it.


Lucius Fox:
Spying on 30 million people isn't part of my job description.

If you remember, Lucius only conceds if Bruce promises to destroy the system after using it for this single time.

That whole plot point is meant to pose ethical questions to the mainstream audience, whom probably have not thought about the subject before. I don't think it was promoting the idea.

 

Also Bruce Wayne's line of work--government "defense" contractor--really irked me.

Actually, that department had been shut down before Bruce even became Batman, as Lucius Fox informs him in the first film. All those weapons and defensive technologies were just sitting in that warehouse for him to use.

 

A couple annoying things about this movie that I just couldn't get out of my mind:  the cops emerging from the tunnels after a few months--shaven, relatively clean, and perfectly willing to walk, unarmed toward violent henchmen wielding semi-automatic rifles.  The clean streets of Gotham (hey, maybe a private service started to replace the city trash department?).  Women walking around unscathed while thousands of imprisoned criminals were loosed into the streets.

Actually, I do believe basic supplies were given to them, either through Bane himself or by the cops still in the city. Bane applied the same torture to them as he did to Bruce, he allowed them to live, but they must live to see their beloved city die.

Also, while they were out-weaponed by Bane's army, they did still have some weapons. But I honestly see the cops in that particular situation as rather heroic, because they are sort of 'cut-off' from the state, and are really just desperately fighting for their lives and city at that point, which I find admirable.

 

And, holy Adam Smith's invisible hand, he's doing it to revenge his parents and gain peace of mind from his childhood trauma and guilt!

This is actually a great theme of a 'loss of innocence' that is paralleled by Bane/Talia.

I think Talia's place in the film is to finalize the developed theme of
"revenge through anger". Early on Bruce was angered because his parents
were taken from him, and he allowed that anger to get the better of him. He
overcame that anger, and he molded himself into an icon that would fight
for good - what his parents stood for.

Talia on the other hand
had her parents taken from her (she of course blames Bruce for "killing"
her father) and she has allowed the anger to do its way with her. Of
course, she did not have the same father that Bruce did, she did not
have the same parental philosophy and mindset to inspire her to do good
in the most appropriate of ways. Although, I am sure she loved her
father, and he loved her - they are human after all.

Talia and Bruce are fighting for their respective father's philosophy.
She is fighting to bring peace byway of destroying Gotham, and Bruce is
fighting to bring peace byway of saving it.

So I think
both Talia and Bane parallel Bruce, but Talia is more directly a
parallel to the personal anger Bruce had over his parents' death, while
Bane is a parallel to Bruce's fear and psychological journey from
childhood to an adult and how that molded him into the person he is
today, and what he becomes (Batman).

"Oh, you think darkness is your ally.
But you merely adopted the dark; I was born in it, moulded by it. I
didn't see the light until I was already a man, by then it was nothing
to me but BLINDING!" - Bane

Bane had been born in "darkness", and
therefore Ras could take advantage of him. Bane had succumbed to this
darkness, this belief in fear, that it had consumed him. He had allowed
Ras' psychotic philosophy get the better of him. Bane did not climb out
of the pit himself, but rather Ras brought him out. By the time Bane
saw the light, it was blinding to him.

Bruce on the other hand
was born into the light (a loving family, particularly his father), and
he had that light taken from him by the darkness. Ras once again
attempts to take advantage of this, to seduce Bruce. Bruce of course
takes inspiration from his father, and this develops over the course of
the series. Any time Bruce does something morally questionable, I see it
as Ras as the devil on his shoulder. His conflict in the prison was
when he finally overcame that fear, and that darkness. He conquers it,
and rises above it.

Ras is essentially like a father figure to
both Bruce and Bane. Both of them have their own childhood, and their
own biological fathers, but Ras attempted to replace those figures with
himself.

 

Talia/Bane is exactly what could have become of Bruce had he let his anger/fear get the better of him.

Talia = Bruce's anger

Bane = Bruce's fear

And John Blake's words on this loss of innocence, when talking to Bruce, really does say everything necessary, "Not a lot of people know what it feels like to be angry, in your bones. I
mean, they understand, foster parents, everybody understands, for
awhile. Then they want the angry little kid to do something he knows he
can't do... move on. So after awhile they stop understanding. They send
the angry kid to a boy's home. I figured it out too late. You gotta learn
to hide the anger, practice smiling in the mirror. It's like putting on
a mask."

 

 

[DoubtingThomas]

If you remember, Lucius only conceds if Bruce promises to destroy the system after using it for this single time.

Sounds like the same pitch the state gives for every tax they levy. It's just short-term, only temporary, and the consequences of NOT doing it would be DIRE!

 

[Drop_It_Like_Its_Hoppe]

 

If you remember, Lucius only conceds if Bruce promises to destroy the system after using it for this single time.

Sounds like the same pitch the state gives for every tax they levy. It's just short-term, only temporary, and the consequences of NOT doing it would be DIRE!

 

 

 

Well, to be fair, Batman doesn't use the system again in this film. It is destroyed.

I think it poses good ethical questions to the audience, if they think such a sacrafice of privacy is worth it.

[DoubtingThomas]

 

 

If you remember, Lucius only conceds if Bruce promises to destroy the system after using it for this single time.

Sounds like the same pitch the state gives for every tax they levy. It's just short-term, only temporary, and the consequences of NOT doing it would be DIRE!

 

 

 

Well, to be fair, Batman doesn't use the system again in this film. It is destroyed.

I think it poses good ethical questions to the audience, if they think such a sacrafice of privacy is worth it.

 

I believe that's the primary reason films like this are more on the propaganda side of things than not. In the film - it only happens once. In the real world - the tax never goes away, the patriot act never goes away, etc. etc.

The ethical question is there, but the question is not left open. It is answered fully in the affimative: Yes, we should be comfortable giving up freedom. This is how OTHERS save us. We are powerless to take care of ourselves.

So while I can see why the lone wealthy crime-fighter appears to embody something like a libertarian hero, in fact it's a politically connected plutocrat orphan who does as much to assist and affirm the power of the state as he does to protect people from evil in general.

[Drop_It_Like_Its_Hoppe]

I believe that's the primary reason films like this are more on the propaganda side of things than not. In the film - it only happens once. In the real world - the tax never goes away, the patriot act never goes away, etc. etc

It's not the problem of the film for what the real world is. At least the film is posing the question. This is a pathetic criticism on your part.

 

The ethical question is there, but the question is not left open. It is answered fully in the affimative: Yes, we should be comfortable giving up freedom. This is how OTHERS save us. We are powerless to take care of ourselves.

And it seems you once again display your ignorance of the themes in the film. Batman's decision to lie to the people at the end of the film can be seen as heroic, or cowardly. But what we know is that by the next film, Gotham has turned into a corrupt police state, and personal responsibility is frowned upon, hence the police chasing Batman when he comes back, because Batman represents personal responsibility.

Bruce is quite explicit throughout the series that him being Batman was meant to INSPIRE people to be better, and to take personal responsibility. He is meant as a symbol.

 

So while I can see why the lone wealthy crime-fighter appears to embody something like a libertarian hero, in fact it's a politically connected plutocrat orphan who does as much to assist and affirm the power of the state as he does to protect people from evil in general.

Politically connected? The only direct connection Batman has is to Gordon, and that is because Gordon is seen as the most honest and good cop in a corrupt system. A few bits of dialogue from the series points this out explicitly...

When he is talking to Harvey Dent, Dent exposes the corrupt 'scum' working in Gordon's department, and Gordon says "If I didn't work with cops you investigated while you were making your
name at I.A. I'd be working alone. I don't get political points for
being an idealist, I have to do the best I can with what I have"

Also, during his interrogation with the Joker, figuring out who kidnapped Harvey, The Joker responds, "Who did you leave him with? Your people? Assuming, of course, they are
still *your* people, and not Maroni's. Does it depress you,
commissioner? To know just how alone you really are? Does it make you
feel responsible for Harvey Dent's current predicament?"

And then later on, after Bane reveals the lie that Gordon kept about Harvey being a good man, he says to Blake, "There's a point, far out there when the structures fail you, and the
rules aren't weapons anymore, they're... shackles, letting the bad guy
get ahead. One day... you may face such a moment of crisis. And in that
moment, I hope you have a friend like I did, to plunge their hands into
the filth so that you can keep yours clean"

The 'filth' he is referring to is indeed the corrupt state that he has had to work with all this time. He has had enough of the system, and soon after the events of the film, quits.

The same can be said for Blake, who is a rookie cop that takes what Gordon told him, and quits himself, because the "STRUCTUES HAVE BECOME SHACKLES".

Thus we have Blake, an individual, who RISES to take on personal responsibility.

 

[DoubtingThomas]

 

 It's not the problem of the film for what the real world is. At least the film is posing the question. This is a pathetic criticism on your part.

 

Are we already to the point where you're sticking your tounge out and spouting ad hominem?

 

And it seems you once again display your ignorance of the themes in the film. Batman's decision to lie to the people at the end of the film can be seen as heroic, or cowardly.

 

Curiously, you appear to have made that decision for me and then heaped upon us another delightful character attack.

 

 

 Politically connected? The only direct connection Batman has is to Gordon

 

For someone who is lacing into me for being "ignorant" of the Batman genre, you've just displayed an astounding lack of knowledge about his backstory. He comes from a wealthy family that is the pinnacle of the political elite in Gotham. He is a Bloomberg, not a Galt.

 

I hope you can come up with some more compelling and less insulting arguments. That post was rather dissapointing.

[Drop_It_Like_Its_Hoppe]

 

He comes from a wealthy family that is the pinnacle of the political elite in Gotham.

'Political elite'? Thomas Wayne (Bruce's father) was an entrepreneur, industrialist, surgeon, and philanthropist. He was not a politician, or had any direct connection to politics (at least not in this film series).

Thanks for ignoring all of my other points.

 

 

 

 

[DoubtingThomas]

 

'Political elite'? Thomas Wayne (Bruce's father) was an entrepreneur, industrialist, surgeon, and philanthropist. He was not a politician, or had any direct connection to politics (at least not in this film series).

Thanks for ignoring all of my other points.

 

His father's firm also built the public transportation within the city, just to name something implicit in the film if you haven't got access to the comics. The majority of the products and gadgets attributed to the company are sold to the state.

You're welcome.

 

[JohnDJasper]

 

...This is a pathetic criticism on your part.

...And it seems you once again display your ignorance of the themes in the film.

 

 

Up to this point, I was thinking that this was a good debate on the interpretation of The Dark Knight Rising. It's a shame that someone had to spoil it!

 

I'm drawn towards DoubtingThomas' side in this argument, not because of my greater knowledge of Batman past and present, but because I agree that the film is propagandising in favour of government policy and actions and demonising those who protest against it.  I commend to you Scott Creighton's critique of the film series written before the release of the third film with the hope of fighting the propaganda campaign that the first two films had proven to be: Boycott the Batman: The Dark Knight Trilogy Turns on Us.  (Although in hindsight, it appears that the script predates the Occupy Movement, it didn't predate the recurring mass protests at G8 and other meetings of the globalist leaders.)

from Scott Creighton (aka willyloman) - "Ever since Christopher Nolan took over the Batman franchise in 2003, he has increasingly redefined the Dark Knight to the point where he is nothing more than Dick Cheney in a cape talking in a raspy voice and each and every villain has been demoted from super-natural cartoon caricatures to all-too-human obsessed terrorists with a grudge and WMDs.

We have put up with Nolan’s personal “war on terror” appeasement campaign and even allowed him to profit immensely from it, but now I say to you, enough is enough."

[Formelyknown]

How the hell constructing a public transport is statist?

[mrplow8]

I've always felt that there were anti-state undertones with Batman. Not just in the Nolan movies, but even with the Batman story in general.Batman is a guy who grows up in a city that is completely corrupt, and who realizes that the way to fix it is by working outside of the system; not within it. The police are portrayed as being corrupt or incompetent. This is brought up a lot in The Dark Knight Rises. I'm assuming everyone reading this thread has seen the movie and it's okay to talk spoilers. In TDKR, we're introduced to a character named John Blake, who we find out at the end of the movie is a reimagination of Robin. At the beginning of the movie, Blake is a cop. He's portrayed as being optomistic that he can work as a cop to make the city better. There are several moments in the movie where Blake noticably realizes that the system is what's preventing him from doing the right thing.

At one point, Commissioner Gordon flat out says to Blake, "There's a point far out there, when the structures fail you. When the rules aren't weapons anymore, they're shackles, letting the bad guy get ahead." Gordon is blatantly telling Blake that we will never be able to accomplish anything by working within the system; that, not only will the system not help him change anything, but that it will actively deter him from doing so.Later in the movie, we see John Blake literally throw away his gun. This is him realizing that the gun(the state) is not the answer. From this point forward, we mostly see Blake working alone, and later with Batman. We don't see him working with the police anymore.At the end of the movie, Gordon asks Blake if he's sure that he can't convince him to stay on the force. This is when we find out that Blake has officially quit being a cop. Blake says something like, "Remember what you told me about the rules being shackles." He explicitly states that he's come to the conclusion that he can never accomplish anything by working within the system. It's at this point that we find out that his first name is "Robin", but he goes by "John", and that Batman has left him directions to the Batcave, indicating that Batman has chosen Blake as his successor. The movie ends with Blake entering the Batcave, indicating that he has chosen to follow Batman's path of working outside the system.I believe that John Blake is the character who the audience is supposed to relate to. At the beginning of the movie he's a statist who believes that he can make things better by working within the state. By the end of the movie, he realizes that the state is the problem, and explicitly denounces it.I apologize if I've repeated anything that's already been said. I just sort of skimmed through most of the other posts.

[Wesley]

I've always felt that there were anti-state undertones with Batman. Not just in the Nolan movies, but even with the Batman story in general.

I agree, but it very much depended on the author. Here is a comical, but decent idea of the"personalities of Batman" and the standard view of comic book caracters as Chaotic, Neutral, Lawful or Evil, Neutral, Good (obviously these characteristics don't mean much here, but you get the idea).

[Wesley]

Right Click => View Image. Idk how to correct that.