The Dark Knight Rises Is Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy right-wing?

[Anno_Domini]

Another silly thread is silly Hooper.

Breaking news, I've been told the ending:

Spoiler

It'll be a long commercial against Obamacare

But this made me laugh

 

[Coca Cola Duracell Franklin.]

Yeah they are right wing. And I like them for it. Nolan's films are better than the liberal George Clooney crap we get every freaking year.

 

[Atom Ant]

The HERO is the RICH GUY show GIVES EVERYTHING BACK to the PEOPLE
He is staunchly supporting politicians who want what's best for the little people.
He supports hospitals,orphanages,mass transportation,renewable energy etc.

 

[Atom Ant]

Yeah they are right wing. And I like them for it. Nolan's films are better than the liberal George Clooney crap we get every freaking year.

disagree. Wayne is more like Bill Gates than Sheldon Adelson

 

[ThePhantasm]

"These films are not meant to be providing specific social commentary, I think that would be alienating and I think it would take the fun out of it." - Christopher Nolan

 

[stefan850]

You realise you can argue the exact opposite too, right?

Batman Begins - Came out during Bush administration
Gotham's economy is suffering and the people of the city are tired. Batman tackles corruption, takes down selfish, backstabbing board-memebers, he takes the power back from those in charge and delivers it to the people.

The Dark Knight - Obama "Rises"
All about Dent's change, betting it all on one figure to battle the corruption by legal means. The whole idea of putting trust in the people, and letting people make decisions themselves (the ferry scene). This film is the transition between a Gotham controlled by corrupt bureaucrats and under-the-table deals, to a Gotham for the people, by the people.

The Dark Knight Rises - Defending the current order of things
It's been peace time for years, and now an opposing force comes in, guns a-blazing (similar to how many conservatives have threatened to "take back the country with force"), threatening to take that all away. They smear Dent's name by throwing the Two-Face fiasco in the peoples' faces and instead of remembering the good Dent did, they are starting to focus on the bad.


The great thing about these films is the duality of the political undertones. They're not just one side of the political spectrum; it's both and even then it points out the faults in the actual system overall.

Batman Begins came out way before the financial crisis and the other two "points" are, in my opinion obviously, to much of a reach. The "right wing" ones are not exactly spelled out either, but they are far more "clear" if one wants to see them. In The Dark Knight - the surveillance, the "how far can we go to catch a man who wants chaos", exchanging liberty (freedom to not have our phones tapped) for security etc and, as much as I can tell from the trailers/previews, the occupy wallstreet movement, anger against the 1% etc in TDKR.


Batman after all is about a man who takes things in to his own hands, which is clearly against what we call a "left wing agenda". And of all the things you said about TDK and TDKR none of them are "left wing". Some like " This film is the transition between a Gotham controlled by corrupt bureaucrats and under-the-table deals, to a Gotham for the people, by the people. " are clearly right wing, but none are from the left.

Anyway, I disagree with you that you can somehow spin Batman to be as much on the left side of political spectrum as it is on the other. I'm not even from the US and I'm a moderate in general so I really dont have an "agenda" in this discussion, this is just my opinion of Batman and of Nolan's films.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

There is an interview with Jonathan Nolan on youtube, conducted around the time of the release of TDK, where he addressed all the political issues people found in TDK about the wire tapping/terrorist/blah blah blah and how the script riffed on current events, and he said that Batman has been dealing with issues like that in the comics since his creation, and that mankind has been dealing with them in some form or another since it's creation. It's a cool interview, search it out if you haven't heard it.

 

[Cannikin]

I thought TDK made a statement about the Patriot Act. Unlike our government, Batman did the right thing and gave the citizens their privacy back after the target was taken out.

I've felt like they were pro-people and not left or right wing.

 

[floreairfoot]

Can someone please find a reason to close this thread.

 

[BatLobster]

I think TDK definitely presented "both sides of the coin" as far as the war on terror is concerned, in a fairly non-didactic way. In fact some of the more didactic parts were the more left-wingish "This. is. wrong.".

That said, I think most action films if you were to try and break them down are more right-wing given the nature. The Nolan Bat-films just happen to have more of a mind than most action films, so you get all this discussion.

 

[Pwz414]

Batman isn't killing people. His motivations aren't profit. He doesn't want his power.

No politician in a position analogous to Batman can say any of these things. The critical difference as was mentioned earlier is morality.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Wait, guys, I think you may be onto something... John Blake isn't Nightwing, he's Rightwing!

 

[Cannikin]

John Blake isn't Nightwing, he's Rightwing!

He evades the police by slashing their budgets and uses the bible as a weapon?

 

[Batman jr.]

Another silly thread is silly Hooper.



But this made me laugh

And I though my jokes were bad

 

[chamber-music]

People see these things if they're already looking for them to be there. The people who are seriously tunnel-visioned will only see that their beliefs are supported.

People who live their lives only to bring down others will be in an uproar that the opposition is put on a pedestal in the movie. Doesn't matter which end of the spectrum you're on, both sides can be upheld in a debate. I honestly never looked at political undertones in these movies, and never felt the need to try. It's not about politics, but humanity.

This

The themes in the movie are broad and you could read into them as to what you want.

 

[Nave 'Torment']

I can't find the SOCIAL CONTEXT IN TDKR thread, this belongs there.

I'm not against reading too much into things, especially with political ideologies. These Batman films, and especially with The Dark Knight, politics was a thematic feature in the story itself -- an undertone if not an overtone -- but I don't believe it has anything to do with the Bush Administration or the Obama years.

Granted, seeing Harvey elected and giving "hope" to everyone does echo Obama's victory and the feel of "change" but if you equate it with any one president you immediately see that Harvey's corruption says a lot about whoever it is you want him to be specified as. Personally, it doesn't really equate well with Obama anyway because the movie came out in 2008, which means the story was planned at least a year ago. If Dent is Bush, which TDKR highly contradicts, then you see the director telling a story that is anti-Bush from the get-go -- attacking terrorism, losing his cool when things got serious (a "terrorist attack" on the mayor) but the truth is, if Dent comments on any of these real-world leaders it's simply the title of being an elected official, and not anyone per se.

Asteroid-Man said it best: you can read it either way. The Batman is a vigilante, not the president taking Gotham on a war against terrorism. Interpreting him as a purely Right conservative would mean that the compromises he's making with the law are contradictions. In Batman Begins he is opposing Ra's and his self-proclaimed superior sense of morality and justice -- in essence, against the "divine right of kings" that any liberal knight would. The entire "it's not who you are underneath, but what you do that defines you" is a liberal idea, not a conservative one. If Batman is seen as a socialist hero, then his entire premise of "what needs to be done" is something that Marx would advocate. Both Batman, the Joker, Catwoman, Scarecrow, Two-Face, and Bane are absolutes. As "larger-than-life" figures they should be equated with concepts rather than individuals. For Batman and the Joker, the reason they are able to address these political themes through their conflicts is because they each represent activities outside the government and the law -- they are not answerable or accountable to anyone, that is what makes them so controversial to the people of Gotham City. In addition, the reason Batman and the Joker appear as so uncanny reflections of each other is because they're not part of the system at work. A Rightist or Leftist definition of Batman would rob him of that. Even Frank Miller's DKR , which addresses these issues, was specifically anti-govt. Batman as an unstable figure echoes that. In other words, the reason they are able to be political about good and evil is because, in essence, they are commenting on things that are much more philosophical or psychological. In Batman and the Joker's instance, it's existentialism and nihilism in The Dark Knight -- one seeks to find some semblance of justice in a meaningless world, while the other embraces and is okay with meaninglessness.

Yes, he does have fascist qualities, but you can say that even for the more democratic leaders too. Batman is, as he has been in the comics, a Machiavellian character. That doesn't rob him of his heroism, nor does it make him politically aligned to any one party. The Dark Knight addresses that in absolute terms when this "prince" sacrifices everything--even his own humanity--for the sake of the people. That's a utilitarian concept, in other words, that's a liberal conclusion. A conservative would probably not be prone on saving the joker.

Actually, I rather enjoy different interpretations of these movies. Politics is everywhere whether we like it or not. Saying 'lalala I don't want to talk about it, it's just a movie' seems a little childish.

I agree with this. Isn't there a saying that those who insist on being apolitical are being political about it?

I like your interpretations a whole bunch but I think the end of the Dark Knight is what counts. The upholding the lie to maintain order or to justify their actions. Which is WMDs in Iraq! Also, TDK came out before Obama got elected.

It was similar with 300 -- everyone equated the Persians as the Arabs in Afghanistan (Afghanistan IS NOT modern-day Persia) and the Spartans with Western Military Mentality. And yes, that's certainly a valid interpretation, and a very good one as well. But it's also very limiting. These films, texts, books, have much more to offer than merely equating them to political figures. For one thing, the very fact that they are able to comment on these political figures by not being political figures says a lot about the universal narratives that are at play here--narratives, and themes, that perhaps these historical occurrences touched upon in the real world themselves.

This is why, despite the Occupy parallels in TDKR, and Bane's resemblance to soviet leaders and even to Gaddafi, i'll favour a less historical appreciation. I prefer to limit the work to the work itself. I know that's harsh, and maybe erroneous, but hey, if it was good for the New Critics, why not?

Its the narrative of the public persona that inspires people and keeps them going.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

You realise you can argue the exact opposite too, right?

Batman Begins - Came out during Bush administration
Gotham's economy is suffering and the people of the city are tired. Batman tackles corruption, takes down selfish, backstabbing board-memebers, he takes the power back from those in charge and delivers it to the people.

The Dark Knight - Obama "Rises"
All about Dent's change, betting it all on one figure to battle the corruption by legal means. The whole idea of putting trust in the people, and letting people make decisions themselves (the ferry scene). This film is the transition between a Gotham controlled by corrupt bureaucrats and under-the-table deals, to a Gotham for the people, by the people.

The Dark Knight Rises - Defending the current order of things
It's been peace time for years, and now an opposing force comes in, guns a-blazing (similar to how many conservatives have threatened to "take back the country with force"), threatening to take that all away. They smear Dent's name by throwing the Two-Face fiasco in the peoples' faces and instead of remembering the good Dent did, they are starting to focus on the bad.


The great thing about these films is the duality of the political undertones. They're not just one side of the political spectrum; it's both and even then it points out the faults in the actual system overall.

No. See the Nolan quote in my sig.

I thought TDK made a statement about the Patriot Act. Unlike our government, Batman did the right thing and gave the citizens their privacy back after the target was taken out.

I've felt like they were pro-people and not left or right wing.

These. Quoted again because they look so good

 

[Anno_Domini]

He evades the police by slashing their budgets and uses the bible as a weapon?

Wait, wait, wait...

Bibleman?

 

[Batman jr.]

Wait, wait, wait...

Bibleman?

Nolan's new project!

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

The first film's libertarian tones (the will to act) the second film with it's war on terror inspired plot and aggressive neo-liberal Batman and now the dark knight rises with overt Occupy imagery and Arab Spring metaphors....

will The Dark Knight be a stand in for the likes of Gaddafi or Mubarak?

http://fundividedattention.wordpress.com/2012/06/27/occupy-christopher-nolan/

Arab spring metaphors?

 

[Anno_Domini]

Nolan's new project!

And we definitely need a more gritty Bibleman, lol.

 

[The Batman]

These. Quoted again because they look so good

You and the guys you quoted saved this thread.

As pointed out, there are so many layers to these characters, labeling them left or right wing would be foolish. I think some characters do work with a specific political belief (Green Arrow and Hawkman for example), but Batman dosent need that. He transcends all that.

 

[Nave 'Torment']

Arab spring metaphors?

I guess Hooper means visual metaphors. But those can be of any revolution to be honest. I only mention Bane to be inspired by Gaddafi because he's a dictator, but nothing more than that. A dictator is a natural escalation for the antagonist when the last one was a terrorist. But that doesn't mean he'd be any particular dictator with a real-life counterpart. These aren't allegories.

 

[coderaven24]

Batman by nature is rightwing, or an deep story of Individualism by nature of the story. A single man doing what goverment couldn't do on its own. People being inspired to help themselves and stand up for whats right on their own.

The sonar technology was more of a reflection of the power granted to romans mentioned by Harvey at dinner and how Batman was willing to give it up when the job was done.

P.S
I personally won't bash Bush or Obama on descions they make with intel I don't have, and when others do it makes them look as foolish as sheep, but feel free to think MSNBC and Foxnews is 100% right and don't self reflect but lets leave our Batman out of it.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

I don't think he meant it was inspired by Obama specifically but was driven by what people desired at the time (and also was very much the mounting narrative about both candidates at the time, both candidates tried to portray themselves as a move away from the political establishment at the time, hence Obama's "Change" and McCain's constant self-labeling as a "Maverick" and the inclusion of a little known female Alaskan governor as a running mate.)

That is indeed what I meant. Thank you.

This. Sadly most people are too politically one-minded to ever grasp this very simple, but very true concept.

Even when they say "and I'm a moderate, so I have no stake in the matter."

Batman Begins came out way before the financial crisis and the other two "points" are, in my opinion obviously, to much of a reach. The "right wing" ones are not exactly spelled out either, but they are far more "clear" if one wants to see them. In The Dark Knight - the surveillance, the "how far can we go to catch a man who wants chaos", exchanging liberty (freedom to not have our phones tapped) for security etc and, as much as I can tell from the trailers/previews, the occupy wallstreet movement, anger against the 1% etc in TDKR.


Batman after all is about a man who takes things in to his own hands, which is clearly against what we call a "left wing agenda". And of all the things you said about TDK and TDKR none of them are "left wing". Some like " This film is the transition between a Gotham controlled by corrupt bureaucrats and under-the-table deals, to a Gotham for the people, by the people. " are clearly right wing, but none are from the left.

Anyway, I disagree with you that you can somehow spin Batman to be as much on the left side of political spectrum as it is on the other. I'm not even from the US and I'm a moderate in general so I really dont have an "agenda" in this discussion, this is just my opinion of Batman and of Nolan's films.

The financial crisis you are talking about is different than the financial crisis I'm talking about. You're talking about a very specific economic crash, whereas I'm talking about the general state of the population. "You care about justice? Look beyond your own pain, Bruce. This city is rotting. People talk about the depression as if its history. It's not. Things are worse than ever down here. Falcone floods our streets with crime and drugs creating new Joe Chills everyday. Falcone may've not killed your parents Bruce but he's destroying everything they stood for." That alone encompasses the world in which Batman Begins was released. Emphasis on DOWN HERE. The "economic crash" was affecting the banks first and foremost. People at the bottom had already been scraping, and they will be for years due to a failing system. That's why Batman exists.

And Batman didn't WANT to breach peoples rights (a left way of looking at it), but he HAD to, so he did it (a right way of looking at it), in the end though, he recognised the dangers of it, and blew it up (a BATMAN way of looking at it).

What occupy wallstreet movement in TDKR? I see the complete opposite. I see the people of Gotham rising up to fight off the corruption. From the looks of everything I have seen, someone is coming to enslave Gotham, and make it a kind of place where everyone takes what they can get. The people of Gotham fight back so that they can protect their city and share in the peace.

If you were truly moderate, you'd be able to see how Batman is completely against the system in place - otherwise he wouldn't even exist. Batman believes he CANNOT argue one side as a whole, which is why he takes action. He has his OWN code. His OWN agenda which is SELFLESS. Both the left and right wings are slaves to a predefined agenda and platform, and they take action on the basis of their party, making their motives selfish. Batman would punch any politician in the face who tried to imply that Batman was endorsing them. Simply put, he never will. He almost did with Harvey Dent and he paid for it VERY dearly. He lost a good friend, and the situation with the mob got blown out to a point where the mob was the least of their concerns; the number of super-villains grew exponentially.

I can't find the SOCIAL CONTEXT IN TDKR thread, this belongs there.

I'm not against reading too much into things, especially with political ideologies. These Batman films, and especially with The Dark Knight, politics was a thematic feature in the story itself -- an undertone if not an overtone -- but I don't believe it has anything to do with the Bush Administration or the Obama years.

Granted, seeing Harvey elected and giving "hope" to everyone does echo Obama's victory and the feel of "change" but if you equate it with any one president you immediately see that Harvey's corruption says a lot about whoever it is you want him to be specified as. Personally, it doesn't really equate well with Obama anyway because the movie came out in 2008, which means the story was planned at least a year ago. If Dent is Bush, which TDKR highly contradicts, then you see the director telling a story that is anti-Bush from the get-go -- attacking terrorism, losing his cool when things got serious (a "terrorist attack" on the mayor) but the truth is, if Dent comments on any of these real-world leaders it's simply the title of being an elected official, and not anyone per se.

See, I meant it as the needs of the people when they were writing TDK. People wanted change, and Nolan recognised that and made Dent all about that. Conveniently enough, Obama also recognised that and made it his platform.

Asteroid-Man said it best: you can read it either way. The Batman is a vigilante, not the president taking Gotham on a war against terrorism. Interpreting him as a purely Right conservative would mean that the compromises he's making with the law are contradictions. In Batman Begins he is opposing Ra's and his self-proclaimed superior sense of morality and justice -- in essence, against the "divine right of kings" that any liberal knight would. The entire "it's not who you are underneath, but what you do that defines you" is a liberal idea, not a conservative one. If Batman is seen as a socialist hero, then his entire premise of "what needs to be done" is something that Marx would advocate. Both Batman, the Joker, Catwoman, Scarecrow, Two-Face, and Bane are absolutes. As "larger-than-life" figures they should be equated with concepts rather than individuals. For Batman and the Joker, the reason they are able to address these political themes through their conflicts is because they each represent activities outside the government and the law -- they are not answerable or accountable to anyone, that is what makes them so controversial to the people of Gotham City. In addition, the reason Batman and the Joker appear as so uncanny reflections of each other is because they're not part of the system at work. A Rightist or Leftist definition of Batman would rob him of that. Even Frank Miller's DKR , which addresses these issues, was specifically anti-govt. Batman as an unstable figure echoes that. In other words, the reason they are able to be political about good and evil is because, in essence, they are commenting on things that are much more philosophical or psychological. In Batman and the Joker's instance, it's existentialism and nihilism in The Dark Knight -- one seeks to find some semblance of justice in a meaningless world, while the other embraces and is okay with meaninglessness.

Yes, he does have fascist qualities, but you can say that even for the more democratic leaders too. Batman is, as he has been in the comics, a Machiavellian character. That doesn't rob him of his heroism, nor does it make him politically aligned to any one party. The Dark Knight addresses that in absolute terms when this "prince" sacrifices everything--even his own humanity--for the sake of the people. That's a utilitarian concept, in other words, that's a liberal conclusion. A conservative would probably not be prone on saving the joker.

Funny enough, I came up with my own political spectrum a long time ago in terms of TDK. Joker is ABSOLUTE right-wing (all about the individual's power, and not succumbing to big-brother's rules and regulations. Doing what you can if you have the power to do it. More for the individual than the group), Two-Face is ABSOLUTE left-wing (follow the laws and gov't regulations, "not about what's right, it's about what's fair" - a fair chance to everyone. More for the group than the individual) and Batman just ****s all over the spectrum. He goes "I see you're absolutes, but it's not that simple."

It was similar with 300 -- everyone equated the Persians as the Arabs in Afghanistan (Afghanistan IS NOT modern-day Persia) and the Spartans with Western Military Mentality. And yes, that's certainly a valid interpretation, and a very good one as well. But it's also very limiting. These films, texts, books, have much more to offer than merely equating them to political figures. For one thing, the very fact that they are able to comment on these political figures by not being political figures says a lot about the universal narratives that are at play here--narratives, and themes, that perhaps these historical occurrences touched upon in the real world themselves.

I will say this though; 300 wasn't a political statement. It was a racial one. I've gone over this many times, drawing numerous examples from the Graphic Novel. Frank Miller has time and time again shown signs of his racism, so drawing that conclusion isn't so much grasping at straws as it is analytically deciphering Frank Miller's work; whether you draw the same conclusion or not.

See that right there? What I just did? I agreed 100% with something Nave said, I agreed somewhat with something else he said and I disagreed 100% about the 300 thing. Do absolutes exists? Relatively speaking, yes. Absolutely speaking, no.

 

[Mr.?]

Sigh, I really hate when people dissect movies like this.