The Dark Knight Trilogy (Christopher Nolan, 2005-2012)

[knives]

Mr. Sausage has said this better than I'm about to right now, but these are not essays and don't need to (and can't really) say anything as a result. He can utilize sure, but in a fantastic story such as this it simply can't say so that criticism doesn't really work and once again is just saying that you don't want to see the film that Nolan wanted to make. Nolan has also expressed that none of these films are political and his goals are for something more broad.

[Brian C]

TDK is very obviously pointing to the War on Terror and the Joker represents terrorism itself. A game without rules. The argument TDK makes is that sometimes extreme measures are needed for extreme circumstances, such as taking over everyones private cellphones in order to perform surveillance to get the bad guy but when that is done the good guy in all his benevolence will stop with this violation of rights because it was only a temporary necessary evil. Essentially excusing the Patriot Act and all the rest. This is not a stretch, its a direct contemporary reference that Nolan certainly must be aware of.

I don't really see it that way. For one thing, and I'm being pedantic here, but it's not a "direct" reference, because there's no Osama bin Laden and no WTC and no Patriot Act in TDK.

More substantially, I don't see it as "excusing" the Patriot Act anyway, because the way that the Patriot Act has played out in real life is pretty much the opposite of the way the surveillance program plays out in TDK. In real life, the Patriot Act was a government act, enacted indefinitely, that only incidentally addressed the nominal reasons for its existence, i.e., as an aid against terrorism. But in the movie, it's a vigilante program against a genuinely existential threat to the civil order, used only for the purpose intended, and shut down immediately after that reason for being no longer existed. It could just as easily be read as something along the lines of, "If these measures must be taken, here's how it should be done, which is not the way the Patriot Act was done."

I'm not really sure why people are so quick to see it as an endorsement of the Patriot Act, because to me it was an idealized version of the logic used to sell the act, but with a very strong voice in the movie (Fox's) spelling out the moral hazards.

That said I don't really care, not everyone has to believe the way I do but at least it's a clear formulation and dramatic tension. In Rises he throws political allusions and imagery at the screen with no consideration for what it means and in the end you walk away feeling like the whole enterprise meant nothing. I didn't place these lofty expectations on the franchise Nolan did and he decided to play with fire and walks away like a chickenshit saying he didn't have political goals. It's like someone who starts an argument over a politicians policy, gets trumped in the argument and says, "Well I'm not a political person, I hate talking about this stuff." It's disingenuous, sad and insulting.

Disregarding what Nolan has actually said ... I won't claim that these movies are politically profound or anything as grand as all that, but I find that the movies themselves deal a lot more openly and honestly with the political issues than most of its detractors attacking the movie on political grounds. Such is the hazard of releasing a movie in an environment where the quality of political discourse is so embarrassingly poor.

[matrixschmatrix]

I think the benchmark for modern action movies combining politics and explosions would be The Bourne Ultimatum, which managed to integrate more direct representations of the signifiers of the Patriot Act and Bushian approach to intelligence work and foreign policy very directly, without ever turning into a political tract- it just demonstrates what the tools are and in what a venal way those tools are used, while simultaneously depicting the people using them as fairly humdrum and unimaginative (but nonetheless dangerous) bureaucrats. The Dark Knight doesn't give you anything that direct- it kept some of the signifiers, but shuffled around who is using them and what they accomplish so much that following any line of argument about it leads to a loop or a contradiction. All the stuff the arguments are made of are included, but there's no one to one relationship between government and good guys or extralegal forces and terrorists or anything. Which works, if only by sleight of hand.

The Dark Knight Rises seems more as though it avoids making a statement by cutting off every line of thought before it can climax, and bringing everything to a head in ways that have no real world impact. To me, that makes it a lesser movie, at least in that respect, and certainly a less satisfying one.

[Mr Sausage]

This was originally a longer post but everyone's pretty much said everything I had written, so it wasn't necessary. I'll just make a couple minor points instead:

TDK is very obviously pointing to the War on Terror and the Joker represents terrorism itself.

The Joker bears no relation to modern terrorism. None at all. He is a nihilist anarchist. He wants to tear down for the sake of tearing down. Terrorism in our time is fanatically attached to specific cultural and religious principles. The Joker rejects the very idea of principles, rules, structure, order, and fights on behalf of nothing, quite literally. He is simply and purely an agent of destruction and in that is nothing more than a boiled down version of every agent of destruction in western culture from dragons on down.

Re: cell phone thingy. Personally, I think the movie only included this little debate between Fox and Wayne to further the sense that Wayne's tactics are being pushed into the unethical from the weight of the Joker's assault. Otherwise, I don't see why it's there, because surveilling everyone seems like exactly the kind of thing you'd expect Batman to do. He can come into your house without a warrant, beat the shit out of you, and then turn over any evidence he gathers to the police for god sakes. Why is anyone bothered that he's phone tapping people? Vigilantism isn't exactly obliged to maintain people's rights.

[flyonthewall2983]

The Joker bears no relation to modern terrorism. None at all. He is a nihilist anarchist. He wants to tear down for the sake of tearing down. Terrorism in our time is fanatically attached to specific cultural and religious principles. The Joker rejects the very idea of principles, rules, structure, order, and fights on behalf of nothing, quite literally. He is simply and purely an agent of destruction and in that is nothing more than a boiled down version of every agent of destruction in western culture from dragons on down.

Maybe it's more similar in terms of perception. The people of Gotham can't comprehend his methods, and as stated by Falcone in Batman Begins people fear what they don't understand. The same goes for the majority of Americans, who were quick to blame Islam for 9/11 because it's a culture so completely 180 degrees from our own.

[knives]

That's as good an interpretation as anything, but it still ruins AS's non-point as it shows a complex take on the situation that just as much blames the western societal norm to the supposed other.

[Brian C]

Maybe it's more similar in terms of perception. The people of Gotham can't comprehend his methods, and as stated by Falcone in Batman Begins people fear what they don't understand. The same goes for the majority of Americans, who were quick to blame Islam for 9/11 because it's a culture so completely 180 degrees from our own.

I think there's a lot to this - there's not much similarity between Joker and actual terrorists, but I think the way that people, especially in the US, think about terrorism is similar to the way that the Joker is conceived as a threat. It's one thing to say that "terrorism in our time is fanatically attached to specific cultural and religious principles," which is of course 100% true and it's important to keep in mind the real-life distinctions between the Joker and actual terrorists. But mainstream political and journalistic discourse mostly ignores those principles in favor of unhelpful statements like "they hate our freedom" and caricatures of terrorists as nihilistic maniacal psychopaths, and I think it's important to relate that dynamic to the movie, too.

I think there's something similar going on with Bane, too, and the way that the movie gives him OWS-style rhetoric, but I probably need to see the movie again before I can really say anything along those lines with any confidence.

[Mr Sausage]

So are we saying that the Joker represents terrorism and terrorists because his depiction is sort of generally similar to mainstream media caricatures of terrorists?

Isn't it more likely that media representations of terrorists as abstractly evil comic book villains and an abstractly evil villain in a comic book movie came to resemble each other because they're working from the same archetype? As in, if the media is making terrorists seem like comic book villains in an archetypal story of good vs evil...well, comic book villains in archetypal stories of good vs evil are plain going to resemble that.

What I'm saying is: it's because they share the same source, basically, not because the one is reflecting the other on purpose or to any purpose. Like I said earlier, the Joker is an agent of chaos and destruction much the same way a dragon is in a story involving knights (not for nothing is the movie called The Dark Knight). In many ways the Joker is an abstraction, a pure force--hence he has no background and no real human identity. Because of that abstract quality you'll find he sums up just about every conception or representation of evil and chaos and whatever. So I think the idea you guys raised is too narrow. Pull back a bit and you'll find much more than caricatures of terrorists are reflected in the Joker. You'll find it goes all the way back to archetype, by design, and therefore contains or summarizes a whole lot more. It's bigger than terrorist caricatures, basically, and therefore isn't a representation of them. He's a representation of the concept western culture has of evil and chaos. And the movie means it this way; this is supposed to be the ultimate rivalry (and duality), the one that goes on forever as the Joker says at the end.

If there is any allegory in this movie, it does not involve topical political issues.

[flyonthewall2983]

"People fear what they don't understand" covers a multitude of things as well, so you're probably right in that there is no allegorical connection with any current political issues. But the idea of fear, and adapting to it through sheer force of will is possibly closer to Nolan's aim with these particular adaptations. Like Bruce Wayne's fear of bats in Begins. His need to become something more, and to train and ultimately contend with the League Of Shadows early on trumps that childhood fear and inspires his caricature of that need. There's also the scene in the ferries in The Dark Knight where, in the face of death itself the people holding the button can't bear to blow up the other ship for fear of becoming like the Joker through some forced set of circumstances.

SpoilerShow

In Rises, this obviously comes when Bruce decides to climb the wall without a rope. It's the ultimate test of anyone's will when you do away with your training wheels and face either freedom or death. My theory about the end of the movie is that while he was climbing it, in the back of his mind he was probably figuring how to fake his death as an endgame for Batman. He set himself up for the famous "one last job" trope, thinking if he somehow came alive out of this it would be the end and he would truly start over again.

[Alan Smithee]

I'm not strictly saying the Joker represents terrorism I'm saying I believe the way he is painted is supposed to illicit that sort of reaction. Terrorism itself does have a political point normally on a case by case basis but people directly after 9/11 were woefully taking great pains not to believe that, cover their ears and just say they're lunatics there's no explanation for it. The way the Joker is played is absolutely based on those fears.

Just google the phrase post 9/11 Batman. I'll give just one example of Manohla Dargis,
"After seven years and two films that have pushed Batman ever deeper into the dark, the director Christopher Nolan has completed his postmodern, post-Sept. 11 epic of ambivalent good versus multidimensional evil with a burst of light." I'm not the only one saying that these films are influenced by the politics of our time.

Do you really think all of these people are just referring to a time period and not a cultural and political moment? You think it's just a coincidence that so much in TDKR is about class war and that is the defining political issue in American domestic politics at the moment?

You are right that mythologies exist to illuminate very primal fundamentals of humanity, Good vs Evil etc. but often times the myth makers also have a political agenda. From Supermans proclamations of "Truth, Justice and the American Way" to whoever the makers of the Old Testament were that decided Jews would be gods chosen people and Israel is their promised land. I'm not knowledgable enough on the subject but I'm sure there's plenty of political examples to be found in Greek and Roman Mythology as well. Nolan continues a long history of pushing an agenda through a myth but that's not what bothers me. I'm all for using Batman as a battleground for ideas no matter what the final conclusion(with exceptions of course), I like TDK, I hate that TDKR uses these things very haphazardly with no intentions in site so that they bounce off each other creating a hodge podge of ideas and messages that he doesn't intend because he's in over his head.

This is all just the political side of things I don't like, I also think the film is dramatically inept and scenes that should have impact land with a thud but thats another issue.

[Mr Sausage]

Do you really think all of these people are just referring to a time period and not a cultural and political moment? You think it's just a coincidence that so much in TDKR is about class war and that is the defining political issue in American domestic politics at the moment?

I think these people are victims of confirmation bias and narrow focus. I think their interpretations are unconvincing and oddly panicky. I think your attempts to connect the Joker to the war on terror have been reduced to increasingly vague generalizations unsupported by any specific facts. I think you've misunderstood my comments on the structural purpose of archetypes and confused them with comments on the political contents of mythology, which are not the same thing. I think everything you have raised here has an origin outside of the two or three topical social issues they supposedly reflect, and I think they only reflect those things in a vague and oblique way.

Finally, I think that, like the idea that Cronenberg's The Fly is an allegory for aids, I'll be much happier when time blunts this particular interpretation that is obscuring the actual film.

[Alan Smithee]

Do you really think all of these people are just referring to a time period and not a cultural and political moment? You think it's just a coincidence that so much in TDKR is about class war and that is the defining political issue in American domestic politics at the moment?

I think these people are victims of confirmation bias and narrow focus. I think their interpretations are unconvincing and oddly panicky. I think your attempts to connect the Joker to the war on terror have been reduced to increasingly vague generalizations unsupported by any specific facts. I think you've misunderstood my comments on the structural purpose of archetypes and confused them with comments on the political contents of mythology, which are not the same thing. I think everything you have raised here has an origin outside of the two or three topical social issues they supposedly reflect, and I think they only reflect those things in a vague and oblique way.

Finally, I think that, like the idea that Cronenberg's The Fly is an allegory for aids, I'll be much happier when time blunts this particular interpretation that is obscuring the actual film.

Well I just don't have the time for a dissertation and if you want a point by point correlative I'll walk away. The nature of the best kind of allegory is that it's open to many readings, Cronenberg is on record saying that The Fly was influenced by the rise of AIDS and is a kind of allegory for sexually transmitted disease. You could read it in other ways as well. I think TDK isn't even nearly in this class. Based on some of your previous conversations it seems like you're resistant to political readings in general or at least consider them a stretch unless it's spelled out. We all have our ways of seeing film and I tend to see a lot of it through a political lens, maybe you prefer to take things at face value.

[matrixschmatrix]

Finally, I think that, like the idea that Cronenberg's The Fly is an allegory for aids, I'll be much happier when time blunts this particular interpretation that is obscuring the actual film.

I think that, as with The Fly, the fact that much of the imagery involved invokes or recalls the topic people associate with it isn't accidental, and to some degree enriches the film- or at least, creates stronger associations with it. It's definitely reductive to try to reduce the works to a one to one allegory, though.

(Though in that respect, I think The Fly is a much richer story)

[knives]

I prefer Cronenberg's approach to that approach by saying it was about old age and dying in general. It certainly makes it a more universal work with that in mind (likewise I love Jarman's Blue because he makes his affliction one that anybody can experience).

[Mr Sausage]

I've never heard Cronenberg being on record as saying The Fly was specifically about aids. I don't see why, either, since it's exploring the exact same things as all of his all of his earlier films. Disease and bodily transformation has been a constant in his work.

The nature of the best kind of allegory is that it's open to many readings

No, that would be failed allegory. Successful allegory is not open at all, it is a system of specific and explicit references that form a coherent secondary narrative that delivers a message.

[Alan Smithee]

After looking it up you're right it wasn't aids it was simply disease. The thing that leads people to go more specific with STD's I think is the sex and the fly baby. So what is the one and only reading that you can make of the fly? and what is the message?

[knives]

The easy answer to that is that The Fly does not aim to be allegory and so does not function under the same rules of critical examination that an allegory would.

[Mr Sausage]

Cronenberg's first film is about a parasite that can be transmitted to people sexually and which produces a hyper-sexuality in them. His second is about a woman who grows a phallic protuberance in her arm whose stinger infects people with a form of rabies. The idea of disease and sexual transmission and bodily transformation were constants in his career. The Fly would have turned out like it did if aids had never existed. The original story coupled with Cronenberg's preexisting preoccupations is what made it what it is.

[Alan Smithee]

Ok. The Dark Knight is not an allegory. It can only be read as about good vs evil. It's only about a brooding guy who wears rubber and that's the only way to look at it.

[Alan Smithee]

Cronenberg's first film is about a parasite that can be transmitted to people sexually and which produces a hyper-sexuality in them. His second is about a woman who grows a phallic protuberance in her arm whose stinger infects people with a form of rabies. The idea of disease and sexual transmission and bodily transformation were constants in his career. The Fly would have turned out like it did if aids had never existed. The original story coupled with Cronenberg's preexisting preoccupations is what made it what it is.

I never said it wouldn't. These are themes. The Dark Knight has them as well.

[knives]

Ok. The Dark Knight is not an allegory. It can only be read as about good vs evil. It's only about a brooding guy who wears rubber and that's the only way to look at it.

Actually something being about good vs. evil could very easily be a form of allegory. Either way there are ways to read a film without utilizing allegory. To go with the Cronenberg examples we've been using his films are without submitting to allegory concerned with the way disease, particularly psychological diseases, effects the body and there is a lot to discuss from there from the obvious existential ones to sexual politics and a few other things that would be too much to list. Allegory is not the only way to apply critical thinking.

[Alan Smithee]

You're absolutely right.

[whatsdavidlynchdoin]

Though the film is filled with political symbols and rhetoric, I see little actual political standing by Nolan. If anything there is a thread of the distrust of bureaucracy, which is what compels Bruce Wayne to become Batman in Batman Begins, the utterly corrupt judicial system.

SpoilerShow

Just because Bane targets the Gotham stock exchange doesn’t mean he’s trying to start an actual OWS revolution, he’s there to take down Bruce as majority stockholder in Wayne Enterprises. Just because he tells the Gotham public he’s starting a revolution doesn’t mean he’s actually creating one, what he creates is a dictatorship that keeps the people in their place until he’s allowed by Talia, to finish their plan. Though he is trying to destroy the current bureaucracy, the upper and lower classes of Gotham, by fulfilling Ra’s plans of destroying Gotham itself. Is that a political stand by Nolan? I don’t think so. Is Guantanamo Bay prison similar to the prison in Gotham? Sure, it has possible criminals incarcerated indefinitely without due process. Is it a political statement to have this in a movie? Or is it a fact of our time and place and a similar fact of Gotham’s time and place in the movie? Is Bane part of a terrorist organization? He sure is. Is having a terrorist as the main antagonist in a movie a political statement? I don’t think it is.

I think TDKR is a movie that reflects the time and place it was made in, and is not pushing any political agenda other than-questioning the bureaucracy of your world is not a bad thing. There are a lot of political viewpoints around and this movie is showing us some of them, in a different context, and getting the audience to reevaluate their own political and moral beliefs, if they choose to do so.

[flyonthewall2983]

Still atop the Box Office, but down 41% from last week. Total domestic gross is at 354 million and change now.

[Brian C]

41% isn't such a bad drop, really - it dropped 61% last weekend from its first. Maybe people are starting to get over their uneasiness over going to see it.