Posted on 07/21/2012 6:39:37 PM PDT by Bratch
From a purely cinematic standpoint, director/co-writer Christopher Nolan's "The Dark Knight Rises" is a genuine masterpiece. Actually, it's a triumph.
Surpassing the extraordinary hype and expectations surrounding the conclusion to his epic trilogy seemed impossible, and yet somehow Nolan achieved just that. The fact that I'm even debating whether or not "Rises" surpasses its perfect predecessor speaks volumes. Without giving anything away -- without telling you if it's tragic or happy or bitter or sweet -- let me just say that the final few minutes of "Rises" represent one of the most intensely satisfying movie moments of my life.
And beyond filmmaking skills that will surely place him among the all-time greats, what kind of crystal ball does Nolan have access to that gives him the prescient power to begin a project years ago that upon delivery would be as timely and relevant as the latest refresh of the Drudge Report? "Rises" is about many things, but it is mostly about a rousing defense of an America under siege by a demagogue disguising his nihilistic rage and thirst for revenge and power as a noble quest for equality.
Sound familiar?
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
The writer is smoking crack, or rather he’s seeing what he wants to see. Nolan wasn’t slamming occupiers (as if the occupy “movement” was even worthwhile enough to slam). He’s not criticizing anyone. The main villain, Bane, speaks with a preacher’s tongue and has a large coterie of selflessly devoted followers - features indicative of being ultimately driven by adherence to some sort of ideology. But if that’s the case, what is it? If you want to see him as driven by a variant of Marxism - you can; and if you don’t so desire you’re free to see otherwise; his rhetoric is kept scrupulously vague.
Nolan’s not trying to make a statement with his movie, he’s trying to entertain. That’s why there’s no shortage of explosions, and fistfights, and a latex clad babe performing high kicks. The movie flirts with ideas in order to create the illusion of depth; but ultimately anything you see therein is nothing but what you want to see. I have no doubt that some occupier has walked out of a movie theater this weekend convinced that Bane was the exact epitome of an extremist right winger who needed to put in his place by our socialist champion Bruce Wayne.
No, he doesn’t ‘live’ in a cave, he operates from a cave.
The movie stated no such thing, characters in the movie said it, and they were the antagonists whom the audience isn’t supposed to identify with. Unless you somehow thought the movie wanted the audience to identify with Bane and not with Batman?
The villains were portrayed with bombasity and care precisely to deconstruct them.
I doubt I will go to a theater to see this movie, but if I do I will take a gas mask and be packing heat.
SPOILER ALERT highlight below if you want to read.
Bane announced at the football stadium that if anyone attempted to leave Gotham he would blow up the city, showed them the bomb, and murdered the scientist right in front of them. He also killed the mayor in the box seats. I feel this occupation of Gotham was actually modelled on France, in both the German occupation in WWII, and in the reign of terror after the French revolution. The reign of terror part is with Dr. Crane (the scarecrow villan from the first film) being the judge sentencing the wealthy to exile or death. Modelling any characters after the French Revolution is not a compliment.
The situation also sets up a lot of heroism on the part of commisioner Gordon, who runs the resistance, and even his office rival. Most notable is the new character police officer who wants to replace Gordon, then becomes a coward who will not resist, but finally when the counter revolution comes, goes to the front of the charge and dies a hero fighting the occupiers.
Furthermore, look at the character development of Selena Kyle, the Cat Woman. She starts out completely sympathetic to the Occupier mentality, even before Bane arrives. She is the one who whispers, "You think this can last? There's a storm coming, Mr. Wayne. You and your friends better batten down the hatches, because when it hits, you're all gonna wonder how you ever thought you could live so large and leave so little for the rest of us."
But by the end of the film, she has switched sides, and her most memorable line: "You don't owe these people any more! You've given them everything!" And she is not saying that as someone just interested in money or the rich. She now has contempt for the people of Gotham, including the occupiers, that they are not worth fighting for. This story arc completely disavows the Occupy movement.
I don’t care what any reviewer says about “Hunger Games,” I thought it was a pretty decent movie, true to the book, and pretty conservative.
I agree with you up to a point, I don’t think the movie is nearly as clearly rightwing as Nolte is making is out to be. But nor do I think it’s completely value neutral. For one thing it clearly drew analogy of Bane’s “revolution” to the French revolution, which was decidedly a leftist revolution.
The city’s rich were as much as a villain a Bain. Every rich person an oppressor of the masses. The government an oppressive regime. Not one hero in the ordinary masses, instead they enjoy the rape and pillaging of the rich. Destroying their property that they didn’t earn.
The movie could have been so much better if Nolan had faith in humanity. Where citizens fought back, where some of the rich offered food and belongings in support of the poor, where people helped people out of the kindness of their hearts, where honest businessman contributed in this time of need. Where people stood up and died for the cause of right. Nolan has no faith in America or the American people, his portrayal is the opposite of what America is.
Perhaps, it seemed to me to be inspired by the Russian revolution - the kangaroo courts seemed to have the whole "soviet justice" vibe about them.
I saw you say that the other day and was a little surprised. I didn’t think it was as bad as, say, Avatar, but still thought it was written from a lefty persective. Oh well, different strokes and all that. I’m hoping to see the Batman movie this evening.
Actually I think the movie stinks. Any ending that does not have Batman watching over Gotham City, Wayne Manor with Bruce Wayne as it’s chief resident, and Wayne Enterprises as a huge conglomerate is not worth the price of admission.
Just a hint, the movie was about Batman. Batman was rich, he was the hero that was risking it all to help people, he gave his money to support an orphanage. He is the rich businessman helping people that you’re looking for.
I don’t know why you think the movie needed another person to play the role of hero, when the whole point was that Batman is the embodiment of all those heroic things you said the film needed. Unless you simply hate Batman as a character as insist on the movie having anybody but him as the hero, in which case I guess I understand why you hate the movie.
Well, you have a big, powerful Panem government that totally controls all the people, even forcing kids to kill each other, but some of the people still have a spark of resistance. They wander beyond the wire (i.e., the Berlin Wall), they kill and eat their own food (NRA types), and in the end, Katniss and Peeta would rather eat deadly berries than play “the man’s” game. Katniss sacrifices herself for her little sister; she befriends others, contrary to the intent of the games; and in the end she once again gives a symbol of resistance. Maybe because I had just read the book my mind filled in a few blanks, but I think it’s anti-leftie. The authoress is a USAF brat and a Catholic.
Well, all leftist revolutions will have those similar characteristics, be they French or Russian, but the point remains that Bane’s revolution is portrayed as very much a leftist revolution.
Batman of the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s was never dark. Kids of that era (including me) would never buy comic books like that. The dark era of Batman came much later to reflect the degeneration of modern society into a cesspool of hate and violence.
thanks...I value your opinion.
and any friend of Breitbart is a friend of mine.
If I can handle the gore I may go see it.
What ever happened to Robin?
Depending on your age and your degree of interest, it's likely you never read any of the comics I refer to as "dark". And there was little heroic about them, either, although I wouldn't discard that term. And, quite frankly, I think it is possible to understand and use the term "dark" without being a "liberal" and moreover, the term "dark" as I used it predates the present use of the word liberal by centuries.
Now I know you have no clue what you are seeing. Did you see the Dark Knight Returns? Where the Joker had wired several barges to explode, unless the passengers on the barges chose to kill the those on the other boat? And both groups, the citizens and the criminals, choose to risk death rather than take the lives of others. The whole point of that movie was faith in the basic decency of people! That's how the Joker was defeated.
Same director. Same theme.
Sorry to burst the ol' bubble, but there never was a *real* Batman. Just a fictional character meant to entertain.
We're assigning way too much importance to the characters of childhood's "graphic novels" (well, except for Doc Savage, of course!)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.