Bane or the Joker?

[DACrowe]

Bane is literally a false populist "revolutionary." It in many ways is a parody/warning of the fearmongerers who peddle in patriotism and revolutionary rhetoric (Glenn Beck types). He is based on Robespierre who promised a "free" France, but instilled a reign of terror where THOUSANDS were executed because of class, social or simply prejudicial standing.

Bane did not believe his populist BS. That is kind of the point.

[BatLobsterRises]

I don't think we were discussing his revolution anyway, just his reasons for being dedicated to Gotham's destruction (which is ultimately blowing it up).

[Boom]

The Joker, in every category.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by DACrowe

Bane is literally a false populist "revolutionary." It in many ways is a parody/warning of the fearmongerers who peddle in patriotism and revolutionary rhetoric (Glenn Beck types). He is based on Robespierre who promised a "free" France, but instilled a reign of terror where THOUSANDS were executed because of class, social or simply prejudicial standing.

Bane did not believe his populist BS. That is kind of the point.

As long as he could get Gotham to believe, then that's all that mattered. Bane knew his agenda as he only wanted Gotham to believe they still had some hope left.

[BlueLightning]

My favorite is the Joker. The way he thinks about people, that everyone is a monster, is something very compelling. That nihilistic view of the world, that nothing matters, is just pure villain material. For the Joker, life doesn't matter. If he gets killed his point is proven. He thrives on violence and aggression, how could Batman fight someone like him? The fact that he is defeated at the end of TDK by the very people he is trying to twist in his own machinations is great. And Batman's victory, though bittersweet, is very noble because, instead of going to try to sneak on the boats to disable the bombs, he believes that the people will do the right thing, he only has to stop the Joker. There are many more things why I believe he is the best villian, but that's talk for another day.

However, Bane is totally different from the Joker, but formidable in the almost the same amount. Whereas the Joker is the total opposite of Batman (Order vs Chaos, One disguised as a frightful figure who does good things, another disguised as a amiable character who does bad things, etc), Bane is an evil version of Batman himself. Being extremely intelligent, a capable fighter, he asks the question: What would Batman do if he was "evil"? It is even iteralized on film, using Bruce Wayne's equipment to bring down Gotham, being the successor of Ra's Al Ghul in the League of Shadows in the place of Bruce, and so on.

As for Bane's motivation on film, I'm on the opinion that Bane did it for fulfilling the League of Shadows purposes and to aid Talia. He loved her (though not in the romantic way many people view the relationship), and was willing to die for the cause (I think both Talia and Bane were , and everyone in the League of Shadows for that matter). Also, he was part of the League of Shadows, it is obvious that he must have know what their goals were, and he agreed to them.

So all in all, both very compelling characters on their own, it is just a matter of preference.

[BatLobsterRises]

Originally Posted by BlueLightning

My favorite is the Joker. The way he thinks about people, that everyone is a monster, is something very compelling. That nihilistic view of the world, that nothing matters, is just pure villain material. For the Joker, life doesn't matter. If he gets killed his point is proven. He thrives on violence and aggression, how could Batman fight someone like him? The fact that he is defeated at the end of TDK by the very people he is trying to twist in his own machinations is great. And Batman's victory, though bittersweet, is very noble because, instead of going to try to sneak on the boats to disable the bombs, he believes that the people will do the right thing, he only has to stop the Joker. There are many more things why I believe he is the best villian, but that's talk for another day.

However, Bane is totally different from the Joker, but formidable in the almost the same amount. Whereas the Joker is the total opposite of Batman (Order vs Chaos, One disguised as a frightful figure who does good things, another disguised as a amiable character who does bad things, etc), Bane is an evil version of Batman himself. Being extremely intelligent, a capable fighter, he asks the question: What would Batman do if he was "evil"? It is even iteralized on film, using Bruce Wayne's equipment to bring down Gotham, being the successor of Ra's Al Ghul in the League of Shadows in the place of Bruce, and so on.

As for Bane's motivation on film, I'm on the opinion that Bane did it for fulfilling the League of Shadows purposes and to aid Talia. He loved her (though not in the romantic way many people view the relationship), and was willing to die for the cause (I think both Talia and Bane were , and everyone in the League of Shadows for that matter). Also, he was part of the League of Shadows, it is obvious that he must have know what their goals were, and he agreed to them.

So all in all, both very compelling characters on their own, it is just a matter of preference.

QFT

[Fudgie]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

I don't think we were discussing his revolution anyway, just his reasons for being dedicated to Gotham's destruction (which is ultimately blowing it up).

Short discussion then.

[BatLobsterRises]

A couple quotes I just read in a review that sum up a lot of my thoughts on Bane/the LOS and fall completely in line with how I interpreted the film:

From the start, Nolan’s Batman films have distinguished themselves from the superhero herd by taking their cues as much from the geo-political arena as the comic-book one, rarely more than in the case of Ra’s, an Eastern extremist whose view of Gotham as the acme of Western “decadence” might have been scripted by Osama bin Laden—or by his mentor, Sayyid Qutb, the theorist and author who visited suburban middle America in the 1940s and returned to his native Egypt horrified by what he had seen, including jazz music and the free intermingling of the sexes. Now Bane and his mercenary army have come to Gotham intent to finish Ra’s work, couching his intended genocide in the familiar rhetoric of class revolution, and with a single, ticking nuclear bomb in place of Ra’s al Ghul’s arsenal of dirty ones.

I firmly believe that is really what the LOS are all about, and I've said my piece about it on here multiple times so I won't go into it again. But that's why for me, everything about them in this film clicks into place- in terms of having relevant and truly frightening motivations, to Bane and Talia sharing these worldviews, to why both facets of their plan- the slow torture and eventual destruction of Gotham actually makes sense (in a very twisted and evil way).

Above all, there is the undying theme that has consumed all of the Nolan Batman films: the fine line between wanting to save the world and seeking its destruction, and the ease with which the rhetoric of one side can be perverted by the other.

Just a cool quote, shows how connected all 3 films are.

[ThePhantasm]

Great post, Batlobster.

[Travesty]

Yeah, I could see that, if Ra's didn't say something completely different in BB. The LOS isn't Al Qaeda, and their motives, along with Ra's, are very different in nature. If they thought the same way like Al Qaeda, they would also be targeting other cities outside of Gotham in the USA, but they don't, and are explicit about stating certain ones in different countries and why...at least, until Bane came back to Gotham, and kinda messed up what the LOS was all about in these movies. The only way I could kinda agree with that article, is if they see Gotham as its own country, which its not, sooooo.....

[BatLobsterRises]

Originally Posted by Travesty

Yeah, I could see that, if Ra's didn't say something completely different in BB. The LOS isn't Al Qaeda, and their motives, along with Ra's, are very different in nature. If they thought the same way like Al Qaeda, they would also be targeting other cities outside of Gotham in the USA, but they don't, and are explicit about stating certain ones in different countries and why...at least, until Bane came back to Gotham, and kinda messed up what the LOS was all about in these movies. The only way I could kinda agree with that article, is if they see Gotham as its own country, which its not, sooooo.....

I would argue that they kinda do view it as its own country, as crazy as it sounds. Heck, by isolating it in TDKR they more or less make it so.

The thing is, Ra's calls Gotham "the world's greatest city", which is something that gets a callback in Rises as well. I think it's fair to say that he saw it as very symbolically valuable to his cause. Similarly to how Al Qaeda attacked the Twin Towers for its symbolic impact. It's about Gotham being the biggest and most sprawling city, therefore being a huge symbol for capitalism and Western civilization in general. It's the city they want to make an example out of so the world can make "the movement back to harmony".

The LOS is not an exact stand-in for Al Qaeda, but the point is the parallels are there. In the movies, they seem to operate as an organization that, through the ages, singles out one civilization at a time that they see as the pinnacle of human corruption. For this modern era, they have selected Gotham.

[Travesty]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

I would argue that they kinda do view it as its own country, as crazy as it sounds. Heck, by isolating it in TDKR they more or less make it so.

The thing is, Ra's calls Gotham "the world's greatest city", which is something that gets a callback in Rises as well. I think it's fair to say that he saw it as very symbolically valuable to his cause. Similarly to how Al Qaeda attacked the Twin Towers for its symbolic impact. It's about Gotham being the biggest and most sprawling city, therefore being a huge symbol for capitalism and Western civilization in general. It's the city they want to make an example out of so the world can make "the movement back to harmony".

The LOS is not an exact stand-in for Al Qaeda, but the point is the parallels are there. In the movies, they seem to operate as an organization that, through the ages, singles out one civilization at a time that they see as the pinnacle of human corruption. For this modern era, they have selected Gotham.

Yeah, but again, it completely contradicts what Ra's had set out in BB. In TDKR, Gotham was at peace, and the city was clean....why terrorize it, if you see it as some "crazed 'Western civilization' out of control", when it wasn't? It was actually portrayed as one of the cleanest cities in America. Which again, goes against Ra's plan in BB to begin with. Not only does the article not make sense, but neither does Bane's/Talia's plan, which of course, is obviously set out on revenge more than what Ra's or the LOS upheld.

That article sounds like they're just commenting on it as a single movie, instead of looking at it as a full trilogy.

[BatLobsterRises]

Originally Posted by Travesty

Yeah, but again, it completely contradicts what Ra's had set out in BB. In TDKR, Gotham was at peace, and the city was clean....why terrorize it, if you see it as some "crazed 'Western civilization' out of control", when it wasn't? It was actually portrayed as one of the cleanest cities in America. Which again, goes against Ra's plan in BB to begin with. Not only does the article not make sense, but neither does Bane's/Talia's plan, which of course, is obviously set out on revenge more than what Ra's or the LOS upheld.

Well, this is where I've hit a wall in every discussion/debate on this because this is where I argue that the LOS isn't really attacking crime, they're attacking greed (the root of the evil presented in the form of the mob and the white collar bad guys in Rises) and decadence. And TDKR goes out of its way to show us that there's plenty of it in Gotham even when the streets are cleaner. For me, it all comes back to the LOS attacking Gotham economically prior to Batman Begins. That stood out to me like a sore thumb even when I first saw Begins. Why do that? The LOS were themselves responsible for creating the desperation that led to the urban nightmare Gotham we saw in Begins. It just begs the question of why, and why that method? Why did they want to create all those Joe Chills if it's crime and only crime they hate so much?

Again, this is where we hit the wall though. I know that the other side of the debate feels strongly that the LOS should have only attacked Gotham if it was still overrun with crime, so I can only agree to disagree.

[Travesty]

But they're not attacking greed at all, they're just attacking people who are rich(who could have easily gotten rich by the book, which doesn't equate to greed), and more specifically, they were attacking Bruce Wayne and Wayne Enterprises, and they did that, in order to acquire the nuke. Just because there are people who are rich, doesn't mean the entire city is corrupt. They only showed one person who was trying to benefit from this, and that was it...and even then, he wasn't the main target, Bruce Wayne was. Everything Bane said to the people was a lie anyways, so I don't know how you could even equate his plan of destroying Gotham to that of greed? Especially when he set up ship under Wayne Enterprise, in order to acquire all of his equipment. The plan was to seek revenge against Wayne, plain and simple....

There's just so much more pointing towards revenge than some intricate plan, that I just can't see it any other way.

[BatLobsterRises]

It's not that intricate though really, it's just the fact that they are attacking a civilization where greed, decadence, imbalance, injustice...whatever you want to call it, has flourished in numerous ways over the years, and they want to make an example out of it for the world (and Bruce Wayne) to see. The LOS, in its own twisted ways are trying to restore balance to the world.

Talia's line about revenge on Bruce being "merely a reward for her patience" seems to suggest that revenge was a parallel, coinciding motive. Talia says flat out that she honors her father by finishing his work, and Bane talks about fulfilling Ra's al Ghul's destiny. I just am trying to say that IMO, if Ra's had survived that train crash...he'd come back to finish the job too, regardless of whether the streets were clean. I kind of equate the Dent Act with The Waynes' philanthropy keeping Gotham alive. Both are things the League sees as a band-aid for a problem that can't be fixed. And yes, it would be partly for revenge if Ra's came back, but I don't think he'd back down one bit in his ideals. I kinda view Talia as the ghost of Ra's, in that sense.

[Travesty]

I don't find it "coincidence" at all, when they knew that Bruce is Batman, they financially crippled him, set a trap in order to break him, set up a nice cozy area in Bane's jail to watch Gotham be destroyed, all while using all of Bruce's tech and nuke.

There are soooooo many more things that point to revenge than showing Gotham "whos boss", that it's very apparent. Unless, you ignore the countless amount of things that they did specifically against Wayne.

[Robin91939]

Why are there people out there who are confused about Bane's motivation?

He loved and wanted to protect Talia. That's the start of it.

He was cast out by Ra's al Ghul.

Ra's al Ghul failed in his attempt to destroy Gotham.

So -- Bane is freed from the Pit because Talia comes back to save him and repay his kindess and protection... Her father can't stand the sight of him because he reminds him of his own mistakes and the imprisonment and death of his only love. Bane is cast out as a man unworthy of Ra's al Ghuls' daughter and legacy by no fault of his own, YET Bane is honorable and still feels in Ra's' debt for him saving his life...

Upon Ra's al Ghuls' death, Talia becomes the head of the Demon and brings Bane back into the League of Shadows, where she felt he always belonged.

While he earned a spot in Talia's eyes, he felt he still needed to prove himself worthy in Ra's' eyes (even in death).

He would help Talia to do what Ra's couldn't. Proving that not only was he Ra's' equal or worthy of the life that Ra's saved when he rescued him -- but that he was his better.

He shows great respect and admiration for Ra's throughout the film. He clearly didn't blame him for exiling him, but he felt like he needed to prove himself worthy in his dead "father's" eyes. That's why when Batman brings up his excommunication, Bane goes nuts. But inthe same scene refers to Ra's as "the great Ra's al Ghul." He felt that he was an honorable man, and understood and accepted the reason that he was excomunnicated, but still felt the need to prove to Ra's (even in death) that he SHOULD NOT have been kicked out and that he was worthy of the League and the best way to do that and to vindicate himself was to finish what Ra's couldn't... Destroy Gotham.


-R

[Doc Samson]

I don't think this is a fair question really. IMO the Joker is the greatest villain in comic history, and Ledger's interpretation will go down in the annals of cinema as a true classic.

That being said though, I think what Hardy did with Bane was much more difficult. Aside from the fact that his face was almost completely covered, Bane as a character isn't the same flamboyant, force of nature the Joker is, which lends itself to a captivating performance more easily.

Bane is probably the most understated of all Batman's Rogues in terms of personality. So I think Hardy & co. crafted a very interesting way of presenting him. It's much harder to pull off those stoic, icy characters, even more so when your face is covered, and even worse when your following up the most outrageous villain of all time. Just based on the level of difficulty, I put Tom's Bane just slightly behind Ledger's Joker.

Originally Posted by Robin91939

Why are there people out there who are confused about Bane's motivation?

He loved and wanted to protect Talia. That's the start of it.

He was cast out by Ra's al Ghul.

Ra's al Ghul failed in his attempt to destroy Gotham.

So -- Bane is freed from the Pit because Talia comes back to save him and repay his kindess and protection... Her father can't stand the sight of him because he reminds him of his own mistakes and the imprisonment and death of his only love. Bane is cast out as a man unworthy of Ra's al Ghuls' daughter and legacy by no fault of his own, YET Bane is honorable and still feels in Ra's' debt for him saving his life...

Upon Ra's al Ghuls' death, Talia becomes the head of the Demon and brings Bane back into the League of Shadows, where she felt he always belonged.

While he earned a spot in Talia's eyes, he felt he still needed to prove himself worthy in Ra's' eyes (even in death).

He would help Talia to do what Ra's couldn't. Proving that not only was he Ra's' equal or worthy of the life that Ra's saved when he rescued him -- but that he was his better.

He shows great respect and admiration for Ra's throughout the film. He clearly didn't blame him for exiling him, but he felt like he needed to prove himself worthy in his dead "father's" eyes. That's why when Batman brings up his excommunication, Bane goes nuts. But inthe same scene refers to Ra's as "the great Ra's al Ghul." He felt that he was an honorable man, and understood and accepted the reason that he was excomunnicated, but still felt the need to prove to Ra's (even in death) that he SHOULD NOT have been kicked out and that he was worthy of the League and the best way to do that and to vindicate himself was to finish what Ra's couldn't... Destroy Gotham.

Brilliant!

[coxcojudy]

I all choose Bane, he is more human.

[coxcojudy]

each of them has their own unique point, clown face and cloth, another is so man with mask

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

For me, it all comes back to the LOS attacking Gotham economically prior to Batman Begins. That stood out to me like a sore thumb even when I first saw Begins. Why do that? The LOS were themselves responsible for creating the desperation that led to the urban nightmare Gotham we saw in Begins. It just begs the question of why, and why that method? Why did they want to create all those Joe Chills if it's crime and only crime they hate so much?

Again, this is where we hit the wall though. I know that the other side of the debate feels strongly that the LOS should have only attacked Gotham if it was still overrun with crime, so I can only agree to disagree.

The LOS decided to attack Gotham the first time because they saw it as a city at the peak of its decadence/corruption.

Attacking Gotham economically was simply their 'nuclear bomb' or weapon, so to speak, their attempt to destroy the city by making everyone poorer and getting the city to tear itself apart.

In TDKR its different. It's more of a focus on the increasing wealth gap, economic disparity caused by greed and corruption of its own citizens (perhaps brought on by corrupt bankers on Wall Street). The LOS views this as corruption worth eliminating.

My only question is if the LOS is against corruption in the banking system, etc or just capitalism in general, once it reaches its peak.

[batbax]

Apparently some people totally missed the parts where the orphan talks to John Blake about people going into the sewers chz it was "a lot easier to find work down there".. The stick brokers getting their shoes shined tossing 1 dollar bills at thrir feet like the people doing the work are peasants. The dent act was a very shady piece of legislation that cleaned the streets but not really in a very moral way.Combine this with plenty of other clues(some subtle like the shoe example)as to the huge class divide in Gotham and I think it's safe to say there is still a huge corruption in the city. Enough so that the Los wouldn't view it any differently in fact maybe even more corrupt than before. Mob crime or white collar crime with oppressed lower classes are just two sides to the same coin.

[Ryan]

I hated bane in the comics, but really liked nolan's interpretation of bane and hardy's performance. Sure he does sound a bit like connery, but I thought heath's joker sounded and at times acted like stuff I've seen before (wicked witch of the west). Still loved both performances, but in the end, would have to say Joker hands down in all categories. The hair on the back of my neck stood up on most of his scenes, whereas Bane, while brutal, was pretty straightforward "movie monster" stuff as Nolan himself said.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by Travesty

Yeah, I could see that, if Ra's didn't say something completely different in BB. The LOS isn't Al Qaeda, and their motives, along with Ra's, are very different in nature. If they thought the same way like Al Qaeda, they would also be targeting other cities outside of Gotham in the USA, but they don't, and are explicit about stating certain ones in different countries and why...at least, until Bane came back to Gotham, and kinda messed up what the LOS was all about in these movies. The only way I could kinda agree with that article, is if they see Gotham as its own country, which its not, sooooo.....

Originally Posted by Travesty

Yeah, but again, it completely contradicts what Ra's had set out in BB. In TDKR, Gotham was at peace, and the city was clean....why terrorize it, if you see it as some "crazed 'Western civilization' out of control", when it wasn't? It was actually portrayed as one of the cleanest cities in America. Which again, goes against Ra's plan in BB to begin with. Not only does the article not make sense, but neither does Bane's/Talia's plan, which of course, is obviously set out on revenge more than what Ra's or the LOS upheld.

That article sounds like they're just commenting on it as a single movie, instead of looking at it as a full trilogy.

Originally Posted by Travesty

But they're not attacking greed at all, they're just attacking people who are rich(who could have easily gotten rich by the book, which doesn't equate to greed), and more specifically, they were attacking Bruce Wayne and Wayne Enterprises, and they did that, in order to acquire the nuke. Just because there are people who are rich, doesn't mean the entire city is corrupt. They only showed one person who was trying to benefit from this, and that was it...and even then, he wasn't the main target, Bruce Wayne was. Everything Bane said to the people was a lie anyways, so I don't know how you could even equate his plan of destroying Gotham to that of greed? Especially when he set up ship under Wayne Enterprise, in order to acquire all of his equipment. The plan was to seek revenge against Wayne, plain and simple....

There's just so much more pointing towards revenge than some intricate plan, that I just can't see it any other way.

Originally Posted by Travesty

I don't find it "coincidence" at all, when they knew that Bruce is Batman, they financially crippled him, set a trap in order to break him, set up a nice cozy area in Bane's jail to watch Gotham be destroyed, all while using all of Bruce's tech and nuke.

There are soooooo many more things that point to revenge than showing Gotham "whos boss", that it's very apparent. Unless, you ignore the countless amount of things that they did specifically against Wayne.

Brilliant. Well said

As someone else pointed out in another thread, this excuse about Bane wanted to live up to where Ra's failed or prove himself as being better than Ra's or whatever, where is this ever touched upon let alone even explored?

Bane says he is here to fulfill Ra's Al Ghul's destiny. That's it. End of discussion in the movie. He's not going to say he's doing it for his friend, Talia, because that would spoil the "twist" of Talia's reveal. Then Talia herself adds further info by saying Bane was cast out because he reminded Ra's too much of what happened his wife in the pit (so apparently all that stuff about him being excommunicated because he was too extreme for Ra's was bull). Bane loves her. Bane was her protector. She is here to honor her father by finishing his work. Bane admits to Bruce in the pit that all the speeches he spins Gotham is just false hope to poison their souls, so you can't believe a word he says about the rich and giving Gotham back to the people. It's all baloney.

Still waiting to hear where the movie suggests Bane is out to prove himself. If you listen to Talia's speech at the end it all implies he is doing it because he loves her. He was willing to die for when she was just a child in the pit. Now he's willing to die for her again so she can finish her father's work.

[Fudgie]

Originally Posted by MAKAVELI25

I'm not saying you're wrong nor am I saying the conclusion you drew is illogical, but none of what you say definitively proves that Bane thinks Gotham is corrupt. He may or may not, it is up to interpretation, and I see nothing wrong in yours. But what I asked for was a specific instance in the film (apart from manipulating the general populace) where Bane says he believes Gotham to be corrupt.

He doesn't ever say it.