The Dark Knight Rises: Articles, Analyses, Notable reviews etc.

[The Laughing Fish]

I completely agree with the excerpts that I've listed underneath. It's from a review that was published three years ago, titled  'The Dark Gnat: How Christopher Nolan's Embarrassing Seriousness Ruined Batman'.

"BATMAN IS THE hero Gotham deserves but not the one it needs right now." So says Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) during the finale of The Dark Knight (2008), the previous entry in the series. The problem with this line, and with the scores of others like it in this latest film, is that I have no idea what it means.

The Dark Knight, which was quite good for the first 90 minutes of its running time, eventually bogged down in ridiculous plot twists and ham-handed lessons in right vs. wrong. (Harvey Dent, the crusading district attorney, is so angry that the love of his life was killed that he decides to join forces with...her killer.) Eventually it is decided that the city of Gotham will not be able to handle the truth about Dent's turn to the dark side. Batman is cast as the villain instead, which presumably would also have been hard for the citizens of Gotham to accept, but never mind. Sometimes heroes must bear the greatest burden of all. (Nolan's scriptwriting style is infectious.)

The reason for recounting this creaky plot is that it is used as the set-up for the latest film, with the city of Gotham peaceful 8 years later. But a new super-villain, Bane, played with great menace by Tom Hardy, is intent on bringing Gotham down. He wants to return the city to the people, or destroy it, or both. The politics of the movie are muddled and confusing, but Bane does desire to humiliate the wealthy, and neuter or destroy the police. One of the many amusing aspects of the plot is that Bane and his henchmen, all psychopathic murderers and terrorists, are angrily moralistic that the police lied to Gothamites about Dent. These villains certainly have a strange ethical code—murder good, lying bad—but I think here, as elsewhere, we can glimpse Nolan the freshman philosopher peeking out from behind the camera. (Nolan obviously does not believe that lying for the greater good is on par with murder, but merely raising phony ethical dilemmas has an obvious appeal to him.)

Suffice to say, Nolan's villains never really make any sense. Only Ra's al Ghul had a more coherent agenda, in my opinion.

Prior to the film's release when test audiences reported difficulty understanding the character [Bane], Nolan loftily informed the studio that he would only consider changing the audio slightly because, as one executive said, "Chris wants the audience to catch up and participate rather than push everything at them. He doesn't dumb things down. You've got to pedal faster to keep up." One is tempted to inquire why Nolan perceives a link between incomprehensibility and intelligence. (Indeed, Bane is not the only character who is hard to understand. Several other actors have trouble being heard over blasting music.) But it is more important to note the backhanded compliment to the audience, as if watching the movie is in itself some sort of intellectual achievement.

Given all the outrageous things that happen in these movies despite how they're supposed to be "thought provoking" and so forth, I can't help but feel that WB executive was taking the piss out of the audience.

What is surprising for a director as talented as Nolan is how sloppy much of the movie is. Twists occur with little plausibility or coherence, characters appear in places they have no reason to be, and a crucial feat of physical strength is premised on the idea that Batman cannot do something that a small child was able to accomplish years before. This particular absurdity can be explained by Nolan's tiresome eastern spirituality ("you must journey inward," Batman was informed in the first film.) With a near Gandhian focus on mind-body distinctions, Nolan sets forth the opinion that any physical feat can be accomplished if one has the necessary inner strength. This may be risible (or worse) as morality, but it does add a dose of pretentiousness to Nolan's appeal.

And it's that appeal that is set to conquer all this weekend. Nolan cannily understands that the last thing an audience wants is to feel condescended to ("condescend" being one of those words that is misused in the script.) The Dark Knight sparked an endless amount of commentary over its supposed relevance to the Bush years, and this latest film has sparked related murmurings on the potential similarities between Occupy Wall Street and Bane's gang of thugs. But don't be fooled. Taking Nolan seriously as a social commentator is giving him more credit than he deserves. He has nothing to tell us about good or evil, other than the idea that evildoing and darkness are by definition profound. I remember being 17 when The Matrix was released, and partaking in endless conversations about "what is real" before grasping that it was these chats that explained the movie's success much more than the slow-motion fights did. Audiences want one thing more than entertainment: They want to feel respected. If only Christopher Nolan actually respected them.

Spot on. It makes me laugh how people say TDK and TDKR is a reflection of September 11 and terrorism in general. Last time I checked, terrorists in the real world tend to commit crimes because they have extreme religious and/or political motives. These are things that TDK's Joker couldn't give a damn about. And as if something like that stupid boat scene and how it ended could have happened in the real world.  Though that being said, I'm leaning towards to give The Matrix a second chance nowadays. I'm beginning to think that movie was more successful in the themes it was purported to having.

Source: www.newrepublic.com/article/105198/isaac-chotiner-dark-gnat-how-christopher-nolans-embarrassing-seriousness-ruined

[Dagenspear]

I completely agree with the excerpts that I've listed underneath. It's from a review that was published three years ago, titled  'The Dark Gnat: How Christopher Nolan's Embarrassing Seriousness Ruined Batman'.


Suffice to say, Nolan's villains never really make any sense. Only Ra's al Ghul had a more coherent agenda, in my opinion.

How do they not make sense? Bane wanted to destroy gotham as a way of completing Ra's attack and while I don't think this is confirmed in the movie I think that he was trying to prove himself.

Given all the outrageous things that happen in these movies despite how they're supposed to be "thought provoking" and so forth, I can't help but feel that WB executive was taking the piss out of the audience.

How do outrageous things happening make something not thought provoking?

Spot on. It makes me laugh how people say TDK and TDKR is a reflection of September 11 and terrorism in general. Last time I checked, terrorists in the real world tend to commit crimes because they have extreme religious and/or political motives. These are things that TDK's Joker couldn't give a damn about. And as if something like that stupid boat scene and how it ended could have happened in the real world.  Though that being said, I'm leaning towards to give The Matrix a second chance nowadays. I'm beginning to think that movie was more successful in the themes it was purported to having.

Source: www.newrepublic.com/article/105198/isaac-chotiner-dark-gnat-how-christopher-nolans-embarrassing-seriousness-ruined

The joker expresses his own ideology about what he's about. People doing the right thing could happen in the real world.

God bless you! God bless everyone in your life!

[thecolorsblend]

How do they not make sense? Bane wanted to destroy gotham as a way of completing Ra's attack and while I don't think this is confirmed in the movie I think that he was trying to prove himself.

"Theatricality and deception; powerful agents to the uninitiated."

"I am the League of Shadows. And I'm here to fulfill Ra's al-Ghul's destiny!"

Bane whipped up a phony baloney revolution based on class envy to turn the city against itself (ie, theatricality and deception) to distract them so that they wouldn't stand in the way of his plans to destroy Gotham City (Ra's al-Ghul's destiny according to Bane).

Bane's bourgeois vs. proletariat/class warfare rhetoric was meant to work the citizens of Gotham into a foaming frenzy, not be rationally analyzed. It was a cog in his plan and should be evaluated on those terms.

Of course, this arguably wasn't Bane's idea. I assumed it was actually Talia's brainchild. Bane was just the front man to carry this all out. More theatricality and deception there.

And in a weird kind of way, Gotham basically tearing itself to pieces while the clock ticks down on the bomb is a form of destruction all by itself. The city's leadership would be neutralized, the citizens would destroy each other and the city itself would be turned into ashes. It's destruction on political, social and physical levels. So there's a degree to which the phony baloney revolution nevertheless is valid in terms of Gotham's destruction. I just think the real move was the nuclear bomb.

All of this is a long way of saying that the political argument thing works in film since it's not supposed to make sense; it's just supposed to divide. And in that purpose it's a massive success.

[The Laughing Fish]

Bane whipped up a phony baloney revolution based on class envy to turn the city against itself (ie, theatricality and deception) to distract them so that they wouldn't stand in the way of his plans to destroy Gotham City (Ra's al-Ghul's destiny according to Bane).

Bane and Talia's plan would have been far more successful if they had simply killed Bruce, and his allies. Instead, we get a contrived time bomb situation where they have to wait for five months to detonate the bomb. We see Talia going to bed with Bruce as part of her plan, when it could've been much easier if she had simply killed him when he's already down in the dumps. We see Bane sending Bruce to a prison where Talia escaped from as a little girl. We see Talia living among the hostages as she co-operates with Blake and Gordon...but not take the opportunity to kill them and prevent them from sabotaging her plan to destroy Gotham. All because of some hysterically misguided approach to "emotionally" cripple Bruce. I know that it's a common action movie trope when villains don't kill heroes despite the chance being there for the taking, but this is ridiculous. A lot of people make fun of Bane and Talia's plan by comparing them to Dr. Evil from Austin Powers, and rightly so (and yes, I realize one may rebut this by arguing the same can be said about every villain ever existed, but I'm using this example to show that Nolan's aren't that great as they're made out to be.).

Sure, it makes TDKR great entertainment as a comedy, but to take it seriously even remotely? No.

Let's face it, the whole mass murder-suicide plot to destroy Gotham was really a smokescreen for Talia's desire to get revenge at Batman for killing Ra's...even though she originally resented her father for kicking her and Bane out of the League. Never mind that Gotham was already peaceful for eight years before their arrival, thanks to the Dent Act.

In my opinion, that author I cited is right when he says that Nolan is cynical for his use of political themes. They come across as gimmicks that trick the audience, and don't really say anything meaningful about what's going on in the world, and come across as "let's put refer to something political in an attempt to sound sophisticated than we actually are". Other than that montage sequence showing people rioting when Gotham was under siege and Bane exposes the truth about Harvey, the streets are otherwise silent and empty.

That being said, Bane taking the opportunity to expose the truth about Dent only goes to show what a terrible ending that TDK had. Batman and Gordon choose to tell a lie that risks tearing the city apart if the truth gets exposed, when blaming the Joker and/or his henchmen, or even keeping Dent's death a mystery, could have allowed Dent's reputation to come out completely unscathed and spare the city from further chaos. Yet, some people reckon that ending was "uplifting". Too bad that Batman and Gordon never realized it was a terrible mistake. Even Blake, despite dismissing Gordon's justification with that shackles speech, told Gordon he was right to lie in the end.

[Dagenspear]

Bane and Talia's plan would have been far more successful if they had simply killed Bruce, and his allies. Instead, we get a contrived time bomb situation where they have to wait for five months to detonate the bomb. We see Talia going to bed with Bruce as part of her plan, when it could've been much easier if she had simply killed him when he's already down in the dumps. We see Bane sending Bruce to a prison where Talia escaped from as a little girl. We see Talia living among the hostages as she co-operates with Blake and Gordon...but not take the opportunity to kill them and prevent them from sabotaging her plan to destroy Gotham. All because of some hysterically misguided approach to "emotionally" cripple Bruce. I know that it's a common action movie trope when villains don't kill heroes despite the chance being there for the taking, but this is ridiculous. A lot of people make fun of Bane and Talia's plan by comparing them to Dr. Evil from Austin Powers, and rightly so (and yes, I realize one may rebut this by arguing the same can be said about every villain ever existed, but I'm using this example to show that Nolan's aren't that great as they're made out to be.).

And a lot of the villains that have done it aren't not great. Villains doing that doesn't make the movie less.

Sure, it makes TDKR great entertainment as a comedy, but to take it seriously even remotely? No.

Let's face it, the whole mass murder-suicide plot to destroy Gotham was really a smokescreen for Talia's desire to get revenge at Batman for killing Ra's...even though she originally resented her father for kicking her and Bane out of the League. Never mind that Gotham was already peaceful for eight years before their arrival, thanks to the Dent Act.

What's not to take seriously? Having resentment towards your father doesn't mean that you don't care when they die. The dent act allowed corruption and crime to come in under the radar without the people noticing and come at them from within in many ways.

In my opinion, that author I cited is right when he says that Nolan is cynical for his use of political themes. They come across as gimmicks that trick the audience, and don't really say anything meaningful about what's going on in the world, and come across as "let's put refer to something political in an attempt to sound sophisticated than we actually are". Other than that montage sequence showing people rioting when Gotham was under siege and Bane exposes the truth about Harvey, the streets are otherwise silent and empty.

It showcases Bane's characterization. The joker rants about how bad people are, but at the end of the day it's not true. Like here. Bane rants about giving gotham back to the people. but people aren't into being held hostage with a bomb.

That being said, Bane taking the opportunity to expose the truth about Dent only goes to show what a terrible ending that TDK had. Batman and Gordon choose to tell a lie that risks tearing the city apart if the truth gets exposed, when blaming the Joker and/or his henchmen, or even keeping Dent's death a mystery, could have allowed Dent's reputation to come out completely unscathed and spare the city from further chaos. Yet, some people reckon that ending was "uplifting". Too bad that Batman and Gordon never realized it was a terrible mistake. Even Blake, despite dismissing Gordon's justification with that shackles speech, told Gordon he was right to lie in the end.

He didn't tell him that. He said he was right about the structures becoming shackles. He did't say he was right about the lie. I don't know how tdkr shows that the ending of tdk is terrible. It shows that the decision they made wasn't great, but that doesn't make the ending bad.

God bless you! God bless everyone in your life!

[thecolorsblend]

Bane and Talia's plan would have been far more successful if they had simply killed Bruce, and his allies. Instead, we get a contrived time bomb situation where they have to wait for five months to detonate the bomb. We see Talia going to bed with Bruce as part of her plan, when it could've been much easier if she had simply killed him when he's already down in the dumps. We see Bane sending Bruce to a prison where Talia escaped from as a little girl. We see Talia living among the hostages as she co-operates with Blake and Gordon...but not take the opportunity to kill them and prevent them from sabotaging her plan to destroy Gotham. All because of some hysterically misguided approach to "emotionally" cripple Bruce. I know that it's a common action movie trope when villains don't kill heroes despite the chance being there for the taking, but this is ridiculous. A lot of people make fun of Bane and Talia's plan by comparing them to Dr. Evil from Austin Powers, and rightly so (and yes, I realize one may rebut this by arguing the same can be said about every villain ever existed, but I'm using this example to show that Nolan's aren't that great as they're made out to be.).

I completely understand your point and there isn't a logical rebuttal for it.

The narrative needs Bane and Talia NOT to kill Bruce. So the narrative must provide incentives for Bane and Talia NOT to kill Bruce. The persuasiveness of that is in the eye of the beholder. For me, their agenda to break Bruce on every possible level works. I don't want to come off like a big Nolan fan here because I think you know my views by now. But at the same time, I have to give credit where it's due. If Talia and Bane's reasons for not killing Bruce when they had the chance doesn't play for you, I can't provide you with an intellectual reason to change something you can't accept on an emotional level.

In my opinion, that author I cited is right when he says that Nolan is cynical for his use of political themes. They come across as gimmicks that trick the audience, and don't really say anything meaningful about what's going on in the world, and come across as "let's put refer to something political in an attempt to sound sophisticated than we actually are". Other than that montage sequence showing people rioting when Gotham was under siege and Bane exposes the truth about Harvey, the streets are otherwise silent and empty.

This requires discussing politics. So without stating my own views (because, trust me, nobody knows them but me) we see in TDK a sort of riff on arguments concerning the Patriot Act. Bruce developed technology that robbed people of their privacy so that he could find a, let's face it, terrorist, civil liberties be damned.

The argument against the Patriot Act was that nobody can be trusted with that kind of power. Lucius implicitly has similar objections to Brother Eye in TDK. But Batman shows that his use of such invasive, intrusive technology can be trusted. It gets destroyed used to capture the Joker.

That's not a cynical political argument for Nolan to make. If anything, it's pretty danged idealistic.

Again, I'm not commenting on my own political views; just trying to work through the interpretive difficulties of Nolan's apparent argument.

TDKRises is interesting inasmuch as it unintentionally predicted Occupy Wall Street. The rhetoric Bane used was echoed by any number of Occupiers I ever heard about. But in the end, Bruce, the plutocratic "self-made man", saved the day, reversed Bane's phony baloney "revolution" and basically put Gotham's upper crust back on top because they actually were innocent victims (apparently) all along.

Again, I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with what Occupy was all about. But only a fool could miss the rhetorical (though coincidental) similarities going on there. And here again one could say that Nolan has a very idealistic view of what has come to be called the 1%.

My firm belief is that if Occupy hadn't become a thing nearly four months after TDKRises finished shooting and nearly a year before the film was released, Bane's political machinations in the movie would've been the breaking point. I truly don't believe wide audiences would've accepted Bane's Occupy Gotham unless a real life Occupy movement bloomed before the movie's release.

That being said, Bane taking the opportunity to expose the truth about Dent only goes to show what a terrible ending that TDK had. Batman and Gordon choose to tell a lie

Yet, some people reckon that ending was "uplifting".

I've seen that argument myself. It's never made sense to me either.

[The Dark Knight]

And a lot of the villains that have done it aren't not great. Villains doing that doesn't make the movie less.

I completely understand your point and there isn't a logical rebuttal for it.

The narrative needs Bane and Talia NOT to kill Bruce. So the narrative must provide incentives for Bane and Talia NOT to kill Bruce. The persuasiveness of that is in the eye of the beholder. For me, their agenda to break Bruce on every possible level works. I don't want to come off like a big Nolan fan here because I think you know my views by now. But at the same time, I have to give credit where it's due. If Talia and Bane's reasons for not killing Bruce when they had the chance doesn't play for you, I can't provide you with an intellectual reason to change something you can't accept on an emotional level.

Yep. I've come around to TDKR much to my surprise. I actually think Dagenspear's posts have a lot to do with it. I was so one track mind negative about the movie, and his/her posts actually made me think and reconsider. I'm not the world's biggest Nolan lover, but the rebuttals do have merit. To the point I actually don't really care that much about the 'big deal' issues such as 'why did they leave Bruce alive', or 'why didn't they just shoot Bane'.

Sure, the ticking time bomb is a plot device so Bruce can come back and save the day just in time. But really, those complaints can be made of any movie or movie villain. Bane/Talia wanted to destroy Gotham physically, socially and politically and have Bruce watch the slow decay live on TV. That was their main objective. I'm willing to accept that. Bruce's escape was never on their radar, just like every past and future Bond villain.

It wasn't just to taunt Bruce, either. But to show the world the downfall of one of the world's biggest cities. Bane's comment about the board members experiencing "the next era of Western civilisation" says quite a lot I think about his views. I recall a comic run in 1997 where Bane threatens Gotham with a nuclear power plant, threatening to use it if Gotham didn't comply with him. But intended to use it anyway. So there's some comic grounding in this plotline.

[The Laughing Fish]

Like I said, the action movie trope of villains not killing heroes when they have the chance is commonplace, but I found that these films, mainly TDK and TDKR, bit more than they could chew, so to speak. Yes, I can buy one moment of that trope happening, but not to have it stretched and repeated so often throughout the film.

I think it reaches a point when it comes to subjective taste, rather one being locked in a particular mindset (I know you weren't accusing me of being negative TDK, I was just making a point). Even if these films weren't put on a pedestal, I'd still hold that opinion.

The only superhero film that sticks out in my mind that may compare to TDKR is Iron Man 3, when Alrich Killian explains his plot to Tony Stark once he had him captured. But I can tolerate that much better because Killian tried to kill Tony at his mansion in Malibu, and Tony found where the Mandarin was supposedly hiding on his own and uncovered the conspiracy before getting captured. But most importantly, it can be argued that Tony surprised everybody when he used his Extremis armor to make his escape. That, and I think Killian's plot to use Extremis to profit on wars against terrorism by creating a fictional terror threat to cover up his tracks made his motives work. I won't go far to say that this thought-provoking stuff, but in my opinion, Killian's agenda is much better than anything I saw in Nolan's films here.

The argument against the Patriot Act was that nobody can be trusted with that kind of power. Lucius implicitly has similar objections to Brother Eye in TDK. But Batman shows that his use of such invasive, intrusive technology can be trusted. It gets destroyed used to capture the Joker.

That's not a cynical political argument for Nolan to make. If anything, it's pretty danged idealistic.

Again, I'm not commenting on my own political views; just trying to work through the interpretive difficulties of Nolan's apparent argument.

I'll admit that you make a valid point by looking at it from that perspective. But my problem with that scene has everything to do with Lucius Fox. He's the same guy who supports Bruce Wayne by giving him the equipment that causes collateral damage e.g. the armored vehicles, gives him the tools to attack and kidnap people (i.e. using sonar during the Lau incident in Hong Kong, which was Fox's idea) and does so without any reservations. He's perfectly okay with enabling a vigilante that puts the entire town at risk and one who doesn't have to worry about things like jurisdictions, accountability, due processes and so on, but he thinks taking desperate measures to find a dangerous perpetrator is going too far? It's something that really annoys me and I just can't ignore. These films don't really explore how Batman impacts on the wider public like Frank Miller does in Dark Knight Returns, yet we're supposed to analyse the political undertones in that sonar scene? I think that I'd appreciate the scene a lot more if Batman called out on Fox's hypocrisy, but as it stands, I just can't help but feel it was disingenuous. I honestly think Nolan would be much better off if were to direct movies that are better suited for the themes he was going for, i.e. based on actual events. Putting them in a Batman movie just makes them too vague, in my opinion.

This is why I'm really hoping that Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice does a much better job at exploring how superheroes affect the public. It may focus Superman as a plot point, but don't be surprised if Superman himself questions Batman's methods as we may have heard in the trailer i.e. "This bat-vigilante is like a one man reign of terror". Whether it will be executed successfully is something that remains to be seen.

Yep. I've come around to TDKR much to my surprise.

That's fine. But for me personally, I prefer a Batman adaptation that stays true to the character: a driven and dedicated crimefigher. And that doesn't necessarily mean he can't have flaws either. Keaton's Batman is unable to have a close relationship with someone like Vicki or have any close friends because of his secret life. TNBA's Batman became so driven and intense that he became distant to Robin, and it led to a falling out that never quite healed. These are flaws, but they keep in line with the nature of the character. If Nolan's point was Batman to becoming a symbol and wanted somebody else to take over the mantle, then he executed it poorly because that point gets contradicted in all three films. I just can't accept that, and it's simply not a Batman that I admire.

It wasn't just to taunt Bruce, either. But to show the world the downfall of one of the world's biggest cities.

Be though as it may, I find it ridiculous that Gotham is surprisingly quiet and empty after that little montage sequence. I think a lot of that has to do with the PG-13 rating hold back on the violence. I just the find the villains to be too ridiculous for my liking that I just can't their plot seriously. I just don't think it was very well executed. Once again, that's just my subjective opinion. Though I do find Tom Hardy's Bane as entertaining out of all the villains here.

I'm not the world's biggest Nolan lover, but the rebuttals do have merit. To the point I actually don't really care that much about the 'big deal' issues such as 'why did they leave Bruce alive', or 'why didn't they just shoot Bane'.

It's one thing to know what to expect from a dumb action movie, but when a director as hyped as Nolan gets especially put on a pedestal as being better than your average filmmaker, I think it's fair to scrutinise his work to see if it lives up to those standards. Personally, not only do they not hold up to those standards, I don't even think his take on Batman holds up as typical action movies.

[The Dark Knight]

Be though as it may, I find it ridiculous that Gotham is surprisingly quiet and empty after that little montage sequence. I think a lot of that has to do with the PG-13 rating hold back on the violence.

I don't find it ridiculous at all. The only people taking part in the violence and lootings are the Blackgate prisoners. As Dagenspear says, Bane rants about giving Gotham 'back to the people', but the people aren't into it. They're locked up in their homes like Foley, scared and isolated.

[The Laughing Fish]

Be though as it may, I find it ridiculous that Gotham is surprisingly quiet and empty after that little montage sequence. I think a lot of that has to do with the PG-13 rating hold back on the violence.

I don't find it ridiculous at all. The only people taking part in the violence and lootings are the Blackgate prisoners. As Dagenspear says, Bane rants about giving Gotham 'back to the people', but the people aren't into it. They're locked up in their homes like Foley, scared and isolated.

Are you sure about that? Because in some publications I've read that reviewed the film, it was reported that the chaos was led by Blackgate prisoners AND working class members of the public. Besides, there is a shot of a hotel doorman dragging a woman away by her fur coat during one of the lootings, so that gives me the impression that anybody could have joined if they wanted to.

Honestly, I find it's quite ridiculous if it was only the Blackgate prisoners doing all the damage, and nobody else in the public got involved in the chaos. That again would only go to show what a horrible ending TDK really had if the people "aren't into it", because it proves that Batman should never have backed down from his belief that people are "ready to believe in good" at the end of the boat scene.