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

[jmc]

Even if TDK can be shown as Batman's war on terror, Bane in TDKR is described as a terrorist too. Basically Batman's villains in Nolan's series are viewed as ''terrorists'', but I wouldn't call that anything such as being right-wing or left-wing.

Yeah, it's called some crazy mother ****er is trying to kill a city full of people. That's real 'political'.

 

[Octoberist]

Jonah Nolan has repeatly said that the context of The Dark Knight wasn't suppose to be political, but it was just set in the world we lived in back in 2008.

 

[Batman jr.]

That is SO far from the truth.

Indeed. But hey, the novel is just for fun. It's presented as realistic, but even if you don't know anything about science and or dinosaurs, you just know that Crichton made all his theories up.

Still a classic though, both novel & movie.

 

[Gianakin_]

I don't care if it's realistic or not. But it's not anti-science (or pro). It's very much another "technology can be used for good or bad" story.

 

[Octoberist]

yeah that's the whole point.

 

[KneelBeforeZod]

That is SO far from the truth.

It is fundamentally a story of commercial science run amok ... of what happens when men try to play God. Malcolm was intended to be the voice of the author.

In the book, John Hammond is presented as a much clearer villain than in the movie.

KBZ

 

[Gianakin_]

Still didn't try to convey science is inherently bad. Neither the movie nor the book.

 

[KneelBeforeZod]

Even if TDK can be shown as Batman's war on terror, Bane in TDKR is described as a terrorist too. Basically Batman's villains in Nolan's series are viewed as "terrorists", but I wouldn't call that anything such as being right-wing or left-wing.

Bane appears to be portrayed as a revolutionary ... more of a military leader than a terrorist. I guess Ras is kind of a terrorist. The thing is, Ras and Bruce largely agree about the problem -- corruption, crime, decadence, etc. So, Batman's fight against Ras is more about differentiating himself from the terrorist ... it is about finding the limits of Batman's vigilante ideology.

Joker and Batman are fundamentally opposed. The fight against Joker is more about pushing the limits of what Batman is willing to do. It is the "pushing the limits" of legality, of ethics, to take on the threat head-on that is "right wing". The "right-wing" part is the "do whatever it takes" -- torture, kidnap, spy, etc. -- to take the terrorist down ... and that the hero of the movie was on board with that concept.

KBZ

 

[KneelBeforeZod]

Still didn't try to convey science is inherently bad. Neither the movie nor the book.

Who said anything about "inherently bad"?

KBZ

 

[Gianakin_]

What's anti-science, then?

 

[KneelBeforeZod]

What's anti-science, then?

It is a cautionary tale about men playing God, about commercial science run amok ... about scientists who "were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should."

That's "anti-science".

Hell, at one point in the movie Malcolm describes scientific discovery as "the rape of the natural world". That's anti-science.

KBZ

 

[Gianakin_]

Well then, wrong phrasing. Anti-science refers to a position that rejects science and the scientific method.

 

[KneelBeforeZod]

Well then, wrong phrasing. Anti-science refers to a position that rejects science and the scientific method.

The phrasing is fine. Anti-science means "against science". Regarding scientific discovery as "rape" qualifies. The movie takes the position that science -- at least in this case -- is morally wrong.

KBZ

 

[Gianakin_]

I disagree 100%, but if you want we can take this to the 'Tusi.

 

[redhawk23]

Yeah, it's called some crazy mother ****er is trying to kill a city full of people. That's real 'political'.

And yet one mega-rich individual taking it upon himself to act outside of the law, using peoples phones to invade everyone's privacy in order to combat that crazy mother****er leading to a potential falling out with close friends is caught up in several several political contexts and not just American ones. Nolan may not have wanted the film to be taking a stand on any of those issues, but its not as if those elements aren't there and its not as if people aren't allowed to have an opinion on how things play out.

 

[KneelBeforeZod]

I disagree 100%, but if you want we can take this to the 'Tusi.

I've said all I need to.

KBZ

 

[Anno_Domini]

Bane appears to be portrayed as a revolutionary ... more of a military leader than a terrorist. I guess Ras is kind of a terrorist. The thing is, Ras and Bruce largely agree about the problem -- corruption, crime, decadence, etc. So, Batman's fight against Ras is more about differentiating himself from the terrorist ... it is about finding the limits of Batman's vigilante ideology.

Joker and Batman are fundamentally opposed. The fight against Joker is more about pushing the limits of what Batman is willing to do. It is the "pushing the limits" of legality, of ethics, to take on the threat head-on that is "right wing". The "right-wing" part is the "do whatever it takes" -- torture, kidnap, spy, etc. -- to take the terrorist down ... and that the hero of the movie was on board with that concept.

KBZ

Yah...nah.

It has been eight years since Batman vanished into the night, turning, in that instant, from hero to fugitive. Assuming the blame for the death of D.A. Harvey Dent, the Dark Knight sacrificed everything for what he and Commissioner Gordon both hoped was the greater good. For a time the lie worked, as criminal activity in Gotham City was crushed under the weight of the anti-crime Dent Act. But everything will change with the arrival of a cunning cat burglar with a mysterious agenda. Far more dangerous, however, is the emergence of Bane, a masked terrorist whose ruthless plans for Gotham drive Bruce out of his self-imposed exile. But even if he dons the cape and cowl again, Batman may be no match for Bane.

 

[Carnotaur3]

And yet one mega-rich individual taking it upon himself to act outside of the law, using peoples phones to invade everyone's privacy in order to combat that crazy mother****er leading to a potential falling out with close friends is caught up in several several political contexts and not just American ones. Nolan may not have wanted the film to be taking a stand on any of those issues, but its not as if those elements aren't there and its not as if people aren't allowed to have an opinion on how things play out.

I think the real problem is people thinking the movie is packaged up with a red little bow and saying "I'm a Right-Wing Propagandist Movie" or I'm Really a Left-Wing Propagandist Movie". You can't have that if the film is viewing all sides of the argument. I don't think it determines for you, I think it makes you think about the issues and let's you determine your own opinions. And that's what good social commentary does. This isn't like watching a Michael Moore documentary here.

 

[wootbaby]

I think the real problem is people thinking the movie is packaged up with a red little bow and saying "I'm a Right-Wing Propagandist Movie" or I'm Really a Left-Wing Propagandist Movie". You can't have that if the film is viewing all sides of the argument. I don't think it determines for you, I think it makes you think about the issues and let's you determine your own opinions. And that's what good social commentary does. This isn't like watching a Michael Moore documentary here.

The movie is British more than anything. It has a lot of British crap like Noblesse oblige, individual sacrifice for the good of society and other nonsense that we don't believe in, in the US.

Hate to break it to you but filmmakers have agendas. The point of most movies is to deliver a message then make stupid Americans think they've come to the conclusions in the movies themselves.

It's far from trying to get you to "let you determine your own opinions" Dr. Strangelove isn't leaving it an open question whether nukes and the military industrial complex are a good or bad thing. Philadelphia is far from raising the question of whether it's acceptable to be gay or AIDS funding. Watching a Chinese flick like Ip Man isn't leaving the question of whether Fascism or Japanese Imperialism is good or bad.

Even the idea that you'd be "informed" enough from watching a 2 hour movie to form a new opinion on some serious issue is just sadly very American (I'm American). People shouldn't try to get morality, history or "perspective" from a movie. Pick up a book or take a class.

 

[Octoberist]

It is fundamentally a story of commercial science run amok ... of what happens when men try to play God. Malcolm was intended to be the voice of the author.

In the book, John Hammond is presented as a much clearer villain than in the movie.

KBZ

Anti-science is the wrong word to use. Then Blade Runner is also anti-science.

 

[Carnotaur3]

Hate to break it to you but filmmakers have agendas.

What are you breaking to me exactly? I am a filmmaker. lol

Of course, I'm aware that there are agendas. But I also know the artist side of directing too. And crafting a story isn't always in keeping with your ideals if the story is interesting and exploring ideas and questions the filmmaker himself is trying to figure out.

But I find it sort of insulting that you think you can't get anything out of a movie, but you can books? Movie's can explore emotionally charged ideas. They're art. They can change perspectives, they can open you up to another side of yourself. You have a very narrow view on what films can do.

You can learn **** in class, but you can learn more about things by opening yourself to experience. You're going to tell me that stories haven't changed people? Well, how do you think religions were formed?

 

[jmc]

And yet one mega-rich individual taking it upon himself to act outside of the law, using peoples phones to invade everyone's privacy in order to combat that crazy mother****er leading to a potential falling out with close friends is caught up in several several political contexts and not just American ones. Nolan may not have wanted the film to be taking a stand on any of those issues, but its not as if those elements aren't there and its not as if people aren't allowed to have an opinion on how things play out.

I'm sorry, the only ones who give a damn about whether a movie is leaning toward gun wielding, oil loving conservatives or tree hugging, pot smoking liberals are Americas. It's a ****ing movie, this bull **** analysis only exists now because of loud mouth cable news hosts who continuously try to find 'agendas' hidden in anything creative. How about that crap with The Muppets last year? **** me, The Muppets. Yes the rest of us in the world have issues, but we don't give a **** about whether a movie has political leaning because frankly there's more important things to be worrying about.

 

[hatebox]

The movie is British more than anything. It has a lot of British crap like Noblesse oblige, individual sacrifice for the good of society and other nonsense that we don't believe in, in the US.

Damn those British Commies!!!

 

[TinkerTailor]

The movie is British more than anything. It has a lot of British crap like Noblesse oblige, individual sacrifice for the good of society and other nonsense that we don't believe in, in the US.

Oh how I do wish this was prevalent in Britain at the moment.

 

[Nave 'Torment']

Bane appears to be portrayed as a revolutionary ... more of a military leader than a terrorist. I guess Ras is kind of a terrorist. The thing is, Ras and Bruce largely agree about the problem -- corruption, crime, decadence, etc. So, Batman's fight against Ras is more about differentiating himself from the terrorist ... it is about finding the limits of Batman's vigilante ideology.

Joker and Batman are fundamentally opposed. The fight against Joker is more about pushing the limits of what Batman is willing to do. It is the "pushing the limits" of legality, of ethics, to take on the threat head-on that is "right wing". The "right-wing" part is the "do whatever it takes" -- torture, kidnap, spy, etc. -- to take the terrorist down ... and that the hero of the movie was on board with that concept.

KBZ

I agree, but they did describe Bane as a terrorist. he's much more clearly a revolutionary and then later a dictator, that's the way i see it. and it's a great progression for the series' antagonists.