The Dark Knight Rises

[Gordon]

Originally Posted by psycheoutsteve

2nd of all, the irony of the nuke plot device is that the nuke was created from a reactor that was meant to provide the world with an unlimited resource of clean energy. What makes this plot element even more ironic is that the hero in the film was responsible for the reactors existence. That to me is interesting; a device meant to help the world is converted into a weapon by the enemy. Even more interesting is the question [I]is Bruce.

There was definitely some sort of political critique going on, and you picked up on an interesting element of it. All three of these films have been political in different ways. I'm not sure what exactly the political message was, but to be honest while I was watching, whether purposeful or not, the whole movie felt Marxist in its orientation. So much of the movie revolved around criticizing the status quo: questions of class, privilege, the tyranny of liberal democracy (after all, who is complicit in the crime? The government that refuses to let people save themselves). There were also all these symbolic relationships between the total destruction of the fictional world, and global capitalism: the use of the stock market, shots of a Sachs Fifth Avenue while society goes to shit. Also at the end JGL quits because "structures are becoming shackles" and he "can't take the injustice". Of course on the other hand, given that the film hero-worships a billionaire capitalist, who the fuck knows? What I'm sure of is there was something political going on -- either left or right -- and it felt far more like some sort of leftist critique than a right wing one.

[rocknblues81]

Originally Posted by Gordon

There was definitely some sort of political critique going on, and you picked up on an interesting element of it. All three of these films have been political in different ways. I'm not sure what exactly the political message was, but to be honest while I was watching, whether purposeful or not, the whole movie felt Marxist in its orientation. So much of the movie revolved around criticizing the status quo: questions of class, privilege, the tyranny of liberal democracy (after all, who is complicit in the crime? The government that refuses to let people save themselves). There were also all these symbolic relationships between the total destruction of the fictional world, and global capitalism: the use of the stock market, shots of a Sachs Fifth Avenue while society goes to shit. Also at the end JGL quits because "structures are becoming shackles" and he "can't take the injustice". Of course on the other hand, given that the film hero-worships a billionaire capitalist, who the fuck knows? What I'm sure of is there was something political going on -- either left or right -- and it felt far more like some sort of leftist critique than a right wing one.

Here is something you might like to read:

http://thinkprogress.org/alyssa/2012...stopher-nolan/

[Gordon]

Originally Posted by rocknblues81

Here is something you might like to read:

http://thinkprogress.org/alyssa/2012...stopher-nolan/

It is a nice read, though I am not sure it clarifies things for me any: while I like the notion of a Burkean reading of the trilogy (I'm a huge fan of Burke, I can understand the temptation to read it as Burkean, in the sense that all three movies do seem to emphasize the importance of a stable society which stresses mutual respect and societal obligations while villainizing all those who would try to form or condemn society according to some singular pretentious utopic vision) it still doesn't strike me as more than a perspective. I think the problem is that it can be coherently read through a Marxist, Burkean, Libertarian, &c. lens. The one thing I think is definitely the case is that there is some point being made about humanity as such, and it has very little to do with current debates in the narrow American political context.

Anyhow, there were a lot of lines I couldn't hear properly and I do have a couple of questions hopefully someone can answer:

Spoiler:

What exactly was the mask doing -- something to do with his "pain"? Why was Bane excommunicated from the League of Shadows, and how did he somehow become its leader again? How was it humanly possible for anyone to be as attractive as Anne Hathaway was in this movie?

[The Postmaster General]

Originally Posted by Digifruitella

I don't know what music you're all talking about. Didn't bother me, and I don't know why it would - I guess you're the same people that found Joker's THEME annoying too.

[Shinigami]

What exactly was the mask doing -- something to do with his "pain"? Why was Bane excommunicated from the League of Shadows, and how did he somehow become its leader again?

Apparently the mask helped the pain of his wound from the plague or the beatings - some obscure suffering done to Bane. I don't know if it was some kind of morphine, but it might have something to do with how he was able to take so many blows from Batman without flinching.

Liam Neeson excommunicated bane because bane reminded him of what he had allowed happen to his daughter. After he died talia presumably took over the league with bane as her second in command. He isn't the leader. He is the figurehead underneath talia.

[Herald]

Originally Posted by Cop No. 633

One thing that I've noticed: I've heard from a few friends that Robin was supposed to become the new Batman and not "Robin." That just bothers the hell out of me, because in no universe could Joseph Gordon Levitt ever be Batman. It's just not possible.

I though he would become the new Batman too. It's what Bruce Wayne always said: Batman is a symbol, not a man.

[adamjohnson]

Yeah, lets face it, the bomb thing had been done before.

[xseanymacx]

Originally Posted by adamjohnson

Yeah, lets face it, the bomb thing had been done before.

I just nearly spit out my drink. And I'll be honest, nothing would make me grin more than Nolan saying his ending was a definite nod to that scene

[adamjohnson]

Originally Posted by Herald

I though he would become the new Batman too. It's what Bruce Wayne always said: Batman is a symbol, not a man.

Which is exactly what's happening in Batman, Inc. right now.

[echo_bravo]

Saw this again the other day. Still a damn good film but I can't move up my rating. I still had some issues with the editing/runtime/and too many characters (Matthew Modine was NOT needed at all)

Despite all that, its one hell of a good time and Nolan gives you your moneys worth.

8.5/10

[P1NSTR1PEZ]

Originally Posted by darkface

I also really enjoyed the fight between Batman and Bane. We haven't had a true fight scene in the entire trilogy. The Joker wasn't a true adversary in strength. Even in Batman Begins we knew Batman was stronger and more agile. What I love is that Bane was a true force to be reckoned with. You felt his power, intelligence, and pain. The dialoue was great and you can really tell Chris Nolan has improved his action sequences since BB. I really believe it was an iconic and classic scene.

the two fight scene's we so amazing. The first one blew me away, i sat up in my chair and leaned forward. The force, and power of Bane, they made him look superhuman, and the dialogue in between the fighting was perfect.

The second fight was cool too, although a bit short. When Batman knocked out the tube from Bane's mask and then he went into this hyper mode, punching wilding and fast almost like a robot, that was the coolest shit I've seen. IDK why but that moment really blew my mind.

[P1NSTR1PEZ]

Originally Posted by Cunning Visions

For those who saw it in a true IMAX theater, did anybody else have a problem with the music being mixed way too high that it drowned out the dialogue in some scenes? Guess it was just my theater.

Yes. I've been telling all my friends that while IMAX is the best way to go for picture, it totally destroys the sound. I saw the advance screening at an IMAX theater and the volume was so loud it distorted the sound, more specifically Bane.

It made Bane's already muffled voice that much harder to understand. When I saw it a second time at midnight at a regular theater, the volume was adjusted and made Bane much more clear. In my review I wrote this, and even stressed how Zimmer's score in IMAX drowns out some of the conversation

[psycheoutsteve]

Originally Posted by Gordon

There was definitely some sort of political critique going on, and you picked up on an interesting element of it. All three of these films have been political in different ways. I'm not sure what exactly the political message was, but to be honest while I was watching, whether purposeful or not, the whole movie felt Marxist in its orientation. So much of the movie revolved around criticizing the status quo: questions of class, privilege, the tyranny of liberal democracy (after all, who is complicit in the crime? The government that refuses to let people save themselves). There were also all these symbolic relationships between the total destruction of the fictional world, and global capitalism: the use of the stock market, shots of a Sachs Fifth Avenue while society goes to shit. Also at the end JGL quits because "structures are becoming shackles" and he "can't take the injustice". Of course on the other hand, given that the film hero-worships a billionaire capitalist, who the fuck knows? What I'm sure of is there was something political going on -- either left or right -- and it felt far more like some sort of leftist critique than a right wing one.

What I like about Nolan's societal critiques in each film is the fact that he never lets the hero escape the politics cleanly. There's always the question did Batman go too far? in each film. That's something that's never been addressed in a political sense in any of the other Batman films as well. With all of Bruce Wayne's resources and power, you would think at some point that he would be in danger of violating the rights of Gotham's citizens or inadvertantly placing them in danger with one of his high tech devices; and in Nolan's films he does both of those things.

Hell, Batman's mere existence gives rise to the Joker and his reign of terror; it's escalation. There's always going to be evil to counterbalance good and vice versa in any society. Even though Bruce escapes a life of eternal crime fighting, he still passes off the torch to Robin at the end because he is aware of this fact.

[P1NSTR1PEZ]

Nolan has always been one for showing films to his actors before shooting and in between shooting, he talks about that all the time.

Now he talks about the 5 films that influenced him while getting ready and shooting The Dark Knight Rises - http://wp.me/p2CCWq-1ik

[soda]

Originally Posted by adamjohnson

Which is exactly what's happening in Batman, Inc. right now.

Right, it always made a huge degree of sense, to me, that Bruce would take the symbol of Batman and franchise it around the world.

[soda]

Originally Posted by Shinigami

Apparently the mask helped the pain of his wound from the plague or the beatings - some obscure suffering done to Bane. I don't know if it was some kind of morphine, but it might have something to do with how he was able to take so many blows from Batman without flinching.

Does anyone on this forum remember how Bane was beaten in Knightfall? Part one of that story, "Broken Bat" was were he broke Batman's back, part two of that story, is where Bruce passes on the cowl to Jean Paul Valley to be the fill-in Batman, and Jean Paul defeats Bane. In part three, "knighsend" Bruce has to come back and defeat Jean Paul to reclaim his mantle. Anyone remember how JPV defeats Bane? The mask. In the comics, and the cartoons, Bane is addicted to a steriodal (makes his muscles bulge out, and wipes away pain) compound/ poison called venom. The venom is delivered directly to Bane's head via his mask. You can see the contraption clearly here:



On the bottom panel. See those tubes going into his mask, and the contraption he's wearing on his left arm? He pushes a buttom on that arm-control, and it pumps venom into the tubes and into his head. The way JPV defeats Bane is to cut those tubes, thus depriving Bane of the steriod that wipes away his pain and makes him stronger. Nolan didn't go with anything like that in the movie, but some of the ideas were there.

Here's a better look at how the venom system works in the comics, from the back of Bane's head:

[soda]

Originally Posted by adamjohnson

When the Dark Knight was ready to "rise" I had hoped that meant Bruce came to understand there would be no end to Batman, not for Rachel or Alfred. And especially not for Bruce Wayne. Nolan sort of went the opposite, which, in an odd way, was also the opposite of most other superhero films - where the hero's journey typically "goes on." Swinging back to action, flying back to the mansion, or looking out over the city. That's the usual story anyway. But, in TDKR, Bruce finds a way to put Batman behind him, but more than that, his parents death and his guilt and hate and anger as well. To find real closure and get on with a happy life.

Im not really sure if thats ever been done in Batman before.

But it also just feels kind of "wrong."

It has been done before. Like I said before, the golden age Batman, in a story published in the 1960's, does eventually retire, marry Selina (like I said, she's the only one who ever got Bruce to the church) and has a child. The golden age Batman and Catwoman also eventually die, and never, to this day, have they come back. (although, I guess you could count the recent earth-2/world's finest as them coming back, if only for a cameo appearance to be killed by Darkseid's forces).

To anyone whose familiar with the entire Batman mythos, the most intriguing thing about Nolan's choice of Bruce ending up with Selina is that it makes perfect sense. What is the flaw in Alfred's reasoning, when he and Bruce have their splitting apart? Alfred, like most rational men, want Bruce to hang up the cape and cowl, settle down, marry and have a family. In short, to find his happiness in life. Here's the logic Alfred is basing his wishes on: that no woman will stick around with Bruce after they find out about Batman. His logic is sound: in the comics, I don't even KNOW why Bruce dates all those women, he has to know how it always ends, she finds out about Batman, she asks him to give it up, and Bruce never will. His mission as Batman always rates higher than the girl.

That's why, in 70+ years of comics, only ONE woman has ever gotten Bruce to say "I do", only one, out of the thousands (literally) that Bruce has dated. The reason it makes sense? Because she's catwoman, she has her own mask, and she likes the masked lifestyle. Catwoman, in the current incarnation (ie, not the golden age one, but the one we have right now) is repeatedly portrayed as the one gal in town who has no interest in Bruce Wayne, she's in love with Batman. Every other woman is the opposite: they have no interest in Batman, they're in love with Bruce Wayne. Its obvious why Selina is really the only choice: she's the one person who will let Bruce have his cake and eat it too. Who will let him marry, have kids, and still be Batman. The reason being? She'll be there, by his side, out on the street, in her costume, defending Gotham alongside him. If he ever tells her that he wants her safe at home, he's a hypocrite.

If Bruce had ended up with someone else, then, yes, I'd agree that he's going to retire. However, he didn't end up with someone else, he ended up with Selina. Based on that, I'm pretty sure Bruce's time as Batman isn't over (it could go either way, based upon all the comics I've read, I could be reading too much into what was simply a choice of convenience, but I don't think Nolan rolls like that) and I'm pretty sure what he's doing for Blake is to take him on as an apprentice. It would make sense, Blake's fighting skills aren't up to snuff, and someone has to train him.

Part of the reason why I think Bruce has to get with someone like Selina is to find his peace in life. Once he's done that, he can start to make Batman into something even more effective than just one man's war on crime. For that to happen, Bruce has to, to some degree, overcome his pain, overcome his trust and abandonement issues. He has to overcome it, to rise above it, so that he can begin to make Batman, the symbol, into a true force for good in Gotham. One man in a mask can only do so much.

[Frosty_86]

I was definitely a man-bitch for more than a few scenes. I got teary eyed when

Spoiler:

Gordon asked Batman who he really was and Batman said he thing about the jacket. Also when Alfred revealed what the letter said.

Michael Caine was sheer greatness in that scene.

I'm sure this is my favorite Batman film, it's hard to say though because I think Batman Begins and The Dark Knight are amazing and damn near perfect. It's really hard for me to rank the Nolan Batmans because I love all of them for different reasons. I must see this again to actually conclude that because I've gotten my fanboy wood and have said that every other time a Nolan Batman movie has come out. I think the entire cast was at the top of their game. I think Bale really stepped up his game in this one, I kind of thought he took a sideline to Heath Ledger and Aaron Eckhart in The Dark Knight. I think Hardy gave a villain that I was fucking terrified of, and may be my favorite villain out of the series. Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Anne Hathaway were fantastic additions to the cast. I was worried that their characters were going to be underwritten and they would just end up being paycheck roles but they really took time to invest in those characters. They were definitely two of the strongest of the series. Gary Oldman and Morgan Freeman slipped easily back into the characters and in reading my spoiler above I really enjoyed the scene with Bats and Gordon. The fight scenes between Bats and Bane were brutal and intense. I felt every punch and kick. The scene in the sewer was hard to watch because it was watching the fall of my boyhood hero. I love the arc that Bruce has to go through in this movie. It's not just about him repairing himself physically after the devastating fight with Bane. But he also has to be repaired emotionally and spiritually after the events of The Dark Knight and has to relearn how to be the hero Gotham City deserves. The movie does not have the constant sense of unease that The Dark Knight has but the final battle of Batman and the cops vs. Bane and his army is the most intense action sequence of the series. I think it was the best ending possible to Nolans Batman universe.

Spoiler:

I was extremely happy that it ended with Bruce and Selina together. It showed Bruce finally finding happiness in his life and not needing Batman anymore. I also got cold chills when they revealed that Batman statue. I got teary-eyed again. I love the image of Blake discovering the Batcave.

I think it was the perfect ending to the series.

[DaMovieMan]

Originally Posted by soda

Does anyone on this forum remember how Bane was beaten in Knightfall? Part one of that story, "Broken Bat" was were he broke Batman's back, part two of that story, is where Bruce passes on the cowl to Jean Paul Valley to be the fill-in Batman, and Jean Paul defeats Bane. In part three, "knighsend" Bruce has to come back and defeat Jean Paul to reclaim his mantle. Anyone remember how JPV defeats Bane? The mask. In the comics, and the cartoons, Bane is addicted to a steriodal (makes his muscles bulge out, and wipes away pain) compound/ poison called venom. The venom is delivered directly to Bane's head via his mask. You can see the contraption clearly here:



On the bottom panel. See those tubes going into his mask, and the contraption he's wearing on his left arm? He pushes a buttom on that arm-control, and it pumps venom into the tubes and into his head. The way JPV defeats Bane is to cut those tubes, thus depriving Bane of the steriod that wipes away his pain and makes him stronger. Nolan didn't go with anything like that in the movie, but some of the ideas were there.

Here's a better look at how the venom system works in the comics, from the back of Bane's head:

Its funny, my sister saw TDKR and was not amused so much as we were. She's nitpicked it like crazy but one of the things that really bothered her was that she claims she knew that Bane could be defeated if only his mask would be taken off and/or broken. And

Spoiler:

during the final fight of course that's what started to happen, Bane's mask started to give way and he was losing it. Had Talia not been there, Bane would have been a goner.

So this pissed her off. Also, the fact that it didn't happen earlier when it could of (she believes) pissed her off.

Anyway, after reading that post of yours soda and hearing about his demise in Knightfall (which I actually have, just never got around to reading it yet because pretty much all my comic-book friends tell me it's terrible) I'm kinda disappointed. It's a very glaring weakpoint for a villain to have no?

And yet, in the film, it worked thanks to Hardy's performance and screen presence. There was no way he'd let anyone come close enough to him for something like that to happen. (Perfectly explained in the prologue )

Spoiler:

The final fight, which I had to explain to my sister, was a different story because Batman had the belief and confidence he didn't have when he first fought him. Plus, it was daylight and Bane wasn't molded by no daylight :P

Ahh, so good this movie. I re-watched Batman Begins and TDK just recently and those movies are even BETTER now after TDKR. Does anyone feel the same? I realize that I'm in complete Bat-mode now and anything related to Batman is amazing to me, but, I think this trilogy as a whole is very worthy of being considered one of the best Batman stories out there. And yes, I'm including Miller, Morrison and Pope in that cannon too.

[Del]

Originally Posted by Squid Vicious

Never heard of this movie. What's it about?

Just wanna nominate this for "Post Of The Year" ..

[Digifruitella]

Did any of you listen to Kevin Smith talk about the flick on the podcast? He gets emotional and starts cryin' n shit, it's so hysterical

http://smodcast.com/episodes/the-dark-knight-rises/

they start talking about the flick around 37 mark anyway. There's a part two as well on ep. 218 of Smodcast

[spooky]

Originally Posted by P1NSTR1PEZ

Yes. I've been telling all my friends that while IMAX is the best way to go for picture, it totally destroys the sound. I saw the advance screening at an IMAX theater and the volume was so loud it distorted the sound, more specifically Bane.

It made Bane's already muffled voice that much harder to understand. When I saw it a second time at midnight at a regular theater, the volume was adjusted and made Bane much more clear. In my review I wrote this, and even stressed how Zimmer's score in IMAX drowns out some of the conversation

just got back from my second viewing. however, this is my first time i've ever been in a IMAX theatre. in the scenes where there the music score has a lot of drums being pounded, the dialogue was a bit lost. if the score was light, i didn't have a problem hearing what was being said. btw, i liked the film better the second time around. didn't have any idiots next to me talking thru the whole thing.

[RustyRazor]

It was okay.

Spoiler:

A good way to end a trilogy, but in my opinion, not the super spectacular it was reported to be.

Seemed a bit slow at points, Bale was great, Caine was great....could've done without Anne Hathaway and I LOVE me some Anne Hathaway. They could've left out the Selina Kyle character and built on the John Blake character altogether and it still would've worked. She was flippy but just seemed added on, for some reason.

And I did...get tired...of a certain character speaking in a CERRRRTAIN.....way. Through a mask that made some of his speech inaudible. A far better Bane than the "Batman & Robin" debacle but still not quite what Bane was.
I actually dug the fact that the comic character Bane was Hispanic. Not the case here, and I won't nitpick IF I could understand ALL of his friggin dialogue.

Joseph Gordon Levitt was good, I could see him as...Nightwing, I'm guessing. Batman would be too big of a stretch. He doesn't have a hint of the skill Bruce did so to take on that mantle? Nah.

To rate the order of coolness it if I were asked:


THE DARK KNIGHT
THE DARK KNIGHT RISES
BATMAN BEGINS

Spoiler:

And kudos to Cillian Murphy for pulling off being in the movie three times. Other than your standard characters, he pulled off the trifecta nicely.

[The Postmaster General]

Saw it again yesterday. I liked it a bit more this time around, sort of -- mainly I was able to focus better for a variety of reasons. Maybe it was bringing a flask with me.

Bane did have some kind of marking on his back but it didn't seem as much a point as it did the first time, which was weird since the first time I wasn't looking for it.

[echo_bravo]

Happy Bday to Christopher NOlan!

He's only 42 yrs old

[DaveyJoeG]

But his hairline is 63.

[shawn-o]

Ok, this is going to be the World Heavyweight Champion of all nitpicks, and this did not harm at all the quality of the movie for me.

But was ANYBODY else bothered that TDKR was not filmed in Chicago?

[CuatroDiablos]

Did not care weather it was filmed in Chicago or NY.

[shawn-o]

eeehhh...I shouldn't have used the word bothered. It was just interesting because both BB and TDK were both filmed in Chicago so it just didn't feel like Gotham in some parts of the movie.

Chicago just feels like Gotham to me these days.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally Posted by shawn-o

Ok, this is going to be the World Heavyweight Champion of all nitpicks, and this did not harm at all the quality of the movie for me.

But was ANYBODY else bothered that TDKR was not filmed in Chicago?

No, I did notice that. The thing is that Gotham between BB and TDK was inconstant. I mean the design of the city in Begins was more sort of futuristic (as Leonard Maltin described it) where as TDK was more contemporary urban. It didn't really bother me, but it was a genuine moment of being taken out of the movie.

[Digifruitella]

I do wish they have kept up with the consistency of shooting Gotham in Chicago, at least the aerial shots, and using all the other cities for ground shooting. Such as New York with the Stock Exchange sequence.. so it was a bit jarring seeing New York this time around standing in for Gotham.

[Darth Kenshin]

This is 8 years after Dark Knight and Gotham has changed a lot in that time. Makes sense to shoot in a completely different city to show that now, Gotham IS a completely different city.

[DaveyJoeG]

Luckily, I'm from bumfuck, so I can't tell one city from the other. All I see is TALL BUILDINGS.

[Cop No. 633]

Originally Posted by Gordon

It is a nice read, though I am not sure it clarifies things for me any: while I like the notion of a Burkean reading of the trilogy (I'm a huge fan of Burke, I can understand the temptation to read it as Burkean, in the sense that all three movies do seem to emphasize the importance of a stable society which stresses mutual respect and societal obligations while villainizing all those who would try to form or condemn society according to some singular pretentious utopic vision) it still doesn't strike me as more than a perspective. I think the problem is that it can be coherently read through a Marxist, Burkean, Libertarian, &c. lens. The one thing I think is definitely the case is that there is some point being made about humanity as such, and it has very little to do with current debates in the narrow American political context.

I have similar feelings to you regarding the politics of the film. I think it was just vague enough to not really make a strong point. Nolan threw in enough lines of dialogue to make people feel that their political philosophy was being reinforced by the film, such as Selina's talking down to Bruce about his wealth, but I don't think the films have a true political philosophy. The observations found in his Batman films are actually very politically safe. For example, the scene in the Dark Knight where Batman and Lucius Fox discuss the ethics of his cell phone spy technology. It was so blatantly obvious that it was about the US government's surveillance of Americans through the Patriot Act. The problem is that, that issue was already discussed to death by the time the film came out, and the general consensus was that it was morally wrong. It felt like an incredibly easy choice for a filmmaker to jump on that issue. There's no risk involved. I feel the same about the way Nolan handled the political moments in this film. It was already safe to say the things he had his characters convey in the film because it's been in our public discourse for the last two years. It's nice to find that in a superhero film, but I also think the way Nolan handled it lacks conviction.

[hoojib127]

Originally Posted by CuatroDiablos

Did not care weather it was filmed in Chicago or NY.

Yeah... but Pittsburgh was crossing the line.

[Edog4]

In regards to the politics...
I think Nolan loves to ask questions without giving clear answers. Not just in the Batman films, but in all of his movies.

TDKR shows the problems with both extremes. You have people living in "decadence" while others starve in the beginning. But when everyone is given "equality," when people can do whatever they want, it is a disaster. People destroy themselves (which actually proves the Joker's theory in TDK right) because they start caring only about living for themselves. This response is part of what makes them so guilty in the eyes of The League of Shadows

With TDK, I'm not sure he is saying the cell phone thing is wrong. It was necessary for Batman to defeat the Joker. I think it more likely that he is saying desperate times call for desperate measures. But those measures should only be temporary and at greatest need.

[The Postmaster General]

Nolan is very adamant about his films not having any political message.

[Gordon]

There is the obvious and interesting question of the function of an author when it comes to the meaning of a work. I think honestly once this stuff is birthed into the world the author can point us in the direction of interpretation, but at that point there is no meaning discoverable outside the text. If these films come across as political it does not do to dismiss these films as unpolitical based on the intention of the author.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally Posted by Gordon

There is the obvious and interesting question of the function of an author when it comes to the meaning of a work. I think honestly once this stuff is birthed into the world the author can point us in the direction of interpretation, but at that point there is no meaning discoverable outside the text. If these films come across as political it does not do to dismiss these films as unpolitical based on the intention of the author.

I was responding in the context of the previous post, that speculated what Nolan's intentions were. Discussions are funny like that.

[hoojib127]

Originally Posted by Edog4

In regards to the politics...
I think Nolan loves to ask questions without giving clear answers. Not just in the Batman films, but in all of his movies.

TDKR shows the problems with both extremes. You have people living in "decadence" while others starve in the beginning. But when everyone is given "equality," when people can do whatever they want, it is a disaster. People destroy themselves (which actually proves the Joker's theory in TDK right) because they start caring only about living for themselves. This response is part of what makes them so guilty in the eyes of The League of Shadows

With TDK, I'm not sure he is saying the cell phone thing is wrong. It was necessary for Batman to defeat the Joker. I think it more likely that he is saying desperate times call for desperate measures. But those measures should only be temporary and at greatest need.

That's because humanity, as a whole, is always looking for the easiest way to accomplish things. And let's face it -- being selfish and evil is much easier than being charitable and good. It's one thing that's kept civilization in a rut (and from 'taking it to the next level') since Day One.