Note: This isn't about the action or the plot, per se. It will involve politics. Just a heads up. I still think Dark Knight Rises is a good film, probably a three and a half or four star movie depending on how generous I feel about the plot. The effects are some of the best in the series and it's generally engaging but drags towards the end. Just so we're clear.
Warning: amateur film criticism follows. It's quite long because I wanted it to be thorough. But basically I was re-watching TDKR because it's on Amazon Prime and I finally hit upon what it is that unreasonably annoys me even though I think the film itself is alright. I'll do a short version and then expand on what I mean.
Short version: Dark Knight Rises pretends the 2008 recession didn't happen, but uses the cultural anger about it at the time to flavour its villains, resulting in a movie where the supposed ideological conflict is fundamentally dishonest.
What does that mean? First off, there are two basic premises:
Premise 1: The villains in The Dark Knight Rises evoke Western political anger after the 2008 recession.
Bane attacks a stock exchange, kidnapping bankers off the trading room floor and criticising them for their profession ("There's no money!" "Then why are you here?"). Selina Kyle, at the beginning, warns Bruce Wayne that there is a 'storm coming' for the rich. When Bane takes control of Gotham, he refers to "overthrowing the elites" and appeals to the "masses" who he intends to "liberate"; he refers to Blackgate Prison as a "symbol of oppression". The first target of Scarecrow's court is sentenced to death on account of growing rich off the mistreatment of his workers. All of this is very similar to rhetoric heard, particularly on the left-wing of politics, in the immediate years following the 2008 financial crisis.
In so far as authorial intention counts, Christopher Nolan noticed the similarities with Occupy Wall Street (even if the movie was written before OWS was a thing) and considered filming a protest to use in the film but ultimately chose not to do so.
Premise 2: The 2008 recession did not adversely affect the Gotham seen in the film.
At the start of the film, Gotham - filmed in and a kind of micro-cosm of American urban centres - is in the midst of a sort of "golden age". Gordon may be forcibly retired because the "war" on crime is over and it is now "peacetime". Before Bane shows up, the streets are clean thanks to Dent and Gordon's work in Dark Knight. Wayne Enterprises' struggles are internal, a struggle at the boardroom level; no mention is made of the potential impact of the financial crisis on the workforce.
Part of the problem with this is it is less what the film shows and more what it chooses not to show. For instance, the film is primarily focussed on characters in the upper stratum of society (the closest to an 'ordinary' viewpoint is probably Detective Blake, a member of the police force; or Selina Kyle's partner in crime, a character who exists primarily so that Kyle can disown her later and complete her turn to the 'good side'). Crucially, however, we are never shown the equivalent of a "turning point" - a reason for Bane and Talia to start Occupy Gotham, so to speak.
This is important because the other two films in the Dark Knight Saga have very strongly-defined ideological conflicts at their core. Batman Begins is a film where the hero and villain battle over the use of symbols to inspire either fear and destruction or hope and stability. The Dark Knight is a film where the hero and villain battle over whether ordinary people choose anarchy or order when confronted with a threat.
Premise 3: The villains in Dark Knight Rises attack Gotham for no reason.
The film compares Bane and Talia's anger to that of anti-Wall Street protestors - a moral crusade, in other words. But it leaves out any motivation for that anger. Their stated motivation is so they can finish the work of Ra's Al Ghul, the villain from Batman Begins. But Ra's Al Ghul wanted to destroy Gotham because the Narrows had started to take over the city, causing a rise in crime and unemployment. Gotham's moral decay gave him a reason to want to destroy Gotham which was in conflict with Bruce Wayne's desire to save it so that it could recover. The Gotham seen in Dark Knight Rises is shown as a functioning, almost idyllic city. This means that Bane and Talia's attempt to destroy it is essentially out of spite.
It probably doesn't need re-stating, but in the real world, the real world which TDKR evokes, there were reasons why people became angry at the time this movie was being written. Jobs were lost, food prices rose, savings were wiped out, homes were re-possessed, bankers were rewarded for failure, etcetera. None of this is seen in the film. The film shows the anger, but doesn't examine it in any fashion - the anger at bankers, the wealthy, and the élite simply exists, as flavour for the film's world, rather than being questioned in any way.
(Warning: we're going to be getting into the murky waters of how people perceive culture and I just want to be clear - I'm not suggesting that right-wing political views in film are inherently a bad thing, Dark Knight is one of my favourite films of all time, I think that left-wing films can be just as guilty of this sort of thing, and using films to talk about politics can be a force for good. I'm just pointing out the problems with this specific film and what its decisions ultimately say about the politics it uses)
The result is a film which, ultimately, suggests a paranoid right-wing fantasy of left-wing politics. (Consider at this point also The Dark Knight's usage of extraordinary rendition, surveillance, and arguably torture)
Bane and Talia start a violent revolution of the established social order for no better reason than they want to destroy something good. The rich and powerful are then sentenced to death in a series of show trials; when Gordon questions this he is told it is "the authority of the people"*. Whistleblowing, for the second time in the saga (see also how Reese is treated in Dark Knight), is portrayed as a cowardly or dangerous thing to do. Most of all, Bane and Talia are shown to be disingenuous hypocrites who preach "liberation" but run a police state and pretend that they will save Gotham when they intend to destroy it. All of this leads up to the moment when the brave hero will save Gotham.
(On Twitter, I called it a 'post-recession fantasy for the 1%')
*An interesting example of a mis-step in the film is the fact that the first person to be sentenced is one of Daggett's henchmen. Are we supposed to root for the villains sentencing this man to death for what sound like actual crimes or root for the henchman to survive? It is kind of unclear.
Pointing out that Bruce Wayne, a billionaire, is the "good guy" is a bit obvious, but note also Selina Kyle's journey. At the beginning, she is on the side of what she calls the "rest of us", attacking Wayne and his rich friends. Mid-way through the movie she becomes horrified at what Bane has done and switches sides, ultimately falling in love with Bruce and retiring with him. Siding with the status quo is the most positive thing, in the movie's universe, that one can do. But the status quo in The Dark Knight Rises is fundamentally different from the real world which the writers used to soup up their villains.
Basically, the movie claims that its conflict is "change versus stability". But it represents "change" by inserting analogues for real-life grievances to have them tilt at windmills.
Conclusions
The Dark Knight Rises sets out an ideological conflict of "status quo versus upheaval" where the status quo is unquestioningly good and upheaval - represented by Talia, Bane, and the sort of "Occupy Gotham" that they lead - is inherently linked to destruction. In and of itself this is not necessarily a bad thing and indeed such a conflict is at the heart of many (some would say all) superhero films. But more irritatingly it takes ideas from the real world - specifically, public anger at the wealthy and élite that sprung up after the recession - and places them in a fantasy world which deprives them of context, turning it into a fight between a billionaire who wants to protect the city because it's good versus a group of villains who want to destroy it because that's what 'the left' do. By painting an extremely warped vision of America circa 2010, it sells its own narrative short.
tl;dr: You know that "Aug Lives Matter" controversy about the new Deus Ex? This is kind of like that: it takes a real-life movement or grievance, deprives it of context, and uses it as surface-level flavour rather than actually engaging with the cultural problem at the heart of the issue like good fiction can do.
On another note, while I like the film, Christian Bale's performance is rubbish
Warning: amateur film criticism follows. It's quite long because I wanted it to be thorough. But basically I was re-watching TDKR because it's on Amazon Prime and I finally hit upon what it is that unreasonably annoys me even though I think the film itself is alright. I'll do a short version and then expand on what I mean.
Short version: Dark Knight Rises pretends the 2008 recession didn't happen, but uses the cultural anger about it at the time to flavour its villains, resulting in a movie where the supposed ideological conflict is fundamentally dishonest.
What does that mean? First off, there are two basic premises:
Premise 1: The villains in The Dark Knight Rises evoke Western political anger after the 2008 recession.
Bane attacks a stock exchange, kidnapping bankers off the trading room floor and criticising them for their profession ("There's no money!" "Then why are you here?"). Selina Kyle, at the beginning, warns Bruce Wayne that there is a 'storm coming' for the rich. When Bane takes control of Gotham, he refers to "overthrowing the elites" and appeals to the "masses" who he intends to "liberate"; he refers to Blackgate Prison as a "symbol of oppression". The first target of Scarecrow's court is sentenced to death on account of growing rich off the mistreatment of his workers. All of this is very similar to rhetoric heard, particularly on the left-wing of politics, in the immediate years following the 2008 financial crisis.
In so far as authorial intention counts, Christopher Nolan noticed the similarities with Occupy Wall Street (even if the movie was written before OWS was a thing) and considered filming a protest to use in the film but ultimately chose not to do so.
Premise 2: The 2008 recession did not adversely affect the Gotham seen in the film.
At the start of the film, Gotham - filmed in and a kind of micro-cosm of American urban centres - is in the midst of a sort of "golden age". Gordon may be forcibly retired because the "war" on crime is over and it is now "peacetime". Before Bane shows up, the streets are clean thanks to Dent and Gordon's work in Dark Knight. Wayne Enterprises' struggles are internal, a struggle at the boardroom level; no mention is made of the potential impact of the financial crisis on the workforce.
Part of the problem with this is it is less what the film shows and more what it chooses not to show. For instance, the film is primarily focussed on characters in the upper stratum of society (the closest to an 'ordinary' viewpoint is probably Detective Blake, a member of the police force; or Selina Kyle's partner in crime, a character who exists primarily so that Kyle can disown her later and complete her turn to the 'good side'). Crucially, however, we are never shown the equivalent of a "turning point" - a reason for Bane and Talia to start Occupy Gotham, so to speak.
This is important because the other two films in the Dark Knight Saga have very strongly-defined ideological conflicts at their core. Batman Begins is a film where the hero and villain battle over the use of symbols to inspire either fear and destruction or hope and stability. The Dark Knight is a film where the hero and villain battle over whether ordinary people choose anarchy or order when confronted with a threat.
Premise 3: The villains in Dark Knight Rises attack Gotham for no reason.
The film compares Bane and Talia's anger to that of anti-Wall Street protestors - a moral crusade, in other words. But it leaves out any motivation for that anger. Their stated motivation is so they can finish the work of Ra's Al Ghul, the villain from Batman Begins. But Ra's Al Ghul wanted to destroy Gotham because the Narrows had started to take over the city, causing a rise in crime and unemployment. Gotham's moral decay gave him a reason to want to destroy Gotham which was in conflict with Bruce Wayne's desire to save it so that it could recover. The Gotham seen in Dark Knight Rises is shown as a functioning, almost idyllic city. This means that Bane and Talia's attempt to destroy it is essentially out of spite.
It probably doesn't need re-stating, but in the real world, the real world which TDKR evokes, there were reasons why people became angry at the time this movie was being written. Jobs were lost, food prices rose, savings were wiped out, homes were re-possessed, bankers were rewarded for failure, etcetera. None of this is seen in the film. The film shows the anger, but doesn't examine it in any fashion - the anger at bankers, the wealthy, and the élite simply exists, as flavour for the film's world, rather than being questioned in any way.
(Warning: we're going to be getting into the murky waters of how people perceive culture and I just want to be clear - I'm not suggesting that right-wing political views in film are inherently a bad thing, Dark Knight is one of my favourite films of all time, I think that left-wing films can be just as guilty of this sort of thing, and using films to talk about politics can be a force for good. I'm just pointing out the problems with this specific film and what its decisions ultimately say about the politics it uses)
The result is a film which, ultimately, suggests a paranoid right-wing fantasy of left-wing politics. (Consider at this point also The Dark Knight's usage of extraordinary rendition, surveillance, and arguably torture)
Bane and Talia start a violent revolution of the established social order for no better reason than they want to destroy something good. The rich and powerful are then sentenced to death in a series of show trials; when Gordon questions this he is told it is "the authority of the people"*. Whistleblowing, for the second time in the saga (see also how Reese is treated in Dark Knight), is portrayed as a cowardly or dangerous thing to do. Most of all, Bane and Talia are shown to be disingenuous hypocrites who preach "liberation" but run a police state and pretend that they will save Gotham when they intend to destroy it. All of this leads up to the moment when the brave hero will save Gotham.
(On Twitter, I called it a 'post-recession fantasy for the 1%')
*An interesting example of a mis-step in the film is the fact that the first person to be sentenced is one of Daggett's henchmen. Are we supposed to root for the villains sentencing this man to death for what sound like actual crimes or root for the henchman to survive? It is kind of unclear.
Pointing out that Bruce Wayne, a billionaire, is the "good guy" is a bit obvious, but note also Selina Kyle's journey. At the beginning, she is on the side of what she calls the "rest of us", attacking Wayne and his rich friends. Mid-way through the movie she becomes horrified at what Bane has done and switches sides, ultimately falling in love with Bruce and retiring with him. Siding with the status quo is the most positive thing, in the movie's universe, that one can do. But the status quo in The Dark Knight Rises is fundamentally different from the real world which the writers used to soup up their villains.
Basically, the movie claims that its conflict is "change versus stability". But it represents "change" by inserting analogues for real-life grievances to have them tilt at windmills.
Conclusions
The Dark Knight Rises sets out an ideological conflict of "status quo versus upheaval" where the status quo is unquestioningly good and upheaval - represented by Talia, Bane, and the sort of "Occupy Gotham" that they lead - is inherently linked to destruction. In and of itself this is not necessarily a bad thing and indeed such a conflict is at the heart of many (some would say all) superhero films. But more irritatingly it takes ideas from the real world - specifically, public anger at the wealthy and élite that sprung up after the recession - and places them in a fantasy world which deprives them of context, turning it into a fight between a billionaire who wants to protect the city because it's good versus a group of villains who want to destroy it because that's what 'the left' do. By painting an extremely warped vision of America circa 2010, it sells its own narrative short.
tl;dr: You know that "Aug Lives Matter" controversy about the new Deus Ex? This is kind of like that: it takes a real-life movement or grievance, deprives it of context, and uses it as surface-level flavour rather than actually engaging with the cultural problem at the heart of the issue like good fiction can do.
On another note, while I like the film, Christian Bale's performance is rubbish
