The Politics of Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy

 Pages PREV 1 2

I absolutely hated the political theme behind this movie. I worked extensively in the occupy movement, particularly with occupy Seattle and Occupy Everett. With that in mind let's make some comparisons between the occupy movment and the dark night rises.

The occupy movement was a political protest against corporate greed, the corruption of Wall Street, and corporation's control of politics. Protesters advocated putting politics back into the hands of the people, not corporations.

In the Movie the Dark Night Rises, Bane takes over the city with an angry mob that systematically execute corporate executives. Bane says that he's giving the city back to the people, not corporate executives.

The occupy movement was fought by police on every front. The police daily attempted to infringe on our constitutional right to assemble and our right to freedom of speech. In many cases the police fired rubber bullets, gas canisters and pepper spray into crowds of peaceful protesters.

In the movie there is a scene where an army of police officers face off against Bane's mob. It was a hyper glorification of police action, showing them as liberators for good, rather than reflecting the actual police action.

The politics behind this movie was a clear attempt to label the occupy movement as a villainous mob of homicidal rioters.

The Script was finalised before the Occupy movement sprung up, so it's not a critique of the occupy movement.



Rather than respond to your every point, I'm going to quote Imperator, who sums up pretty much everything I would want to say in one beautiful post:


The Gentleman:
Sometimes you have to lie. To strangers. To your friends. To yourself. We lie because the alternative is despair and surrender to fate. That is the lie that becomes the end of that movie: You have the choice between the truth that the Joker won and humans are beyond redemption, only a small push from the madness he embodied, or the lie that humans are good and can endure even the harshest times and still come out good in the end. If you believe that the rest of humanity chosen the truth, then you're only lying to yourself.

Capcha: face the music...

If humanity is that pathetic, then it'll need to shape up.

The information age is upon us, far fewer grand lies can remain buried forever, and no lie stand unchallenged. And when exposed - as indeed happened here in the third film - the string of lies will undermine the credibility of the authority telling them. In the end, nothing positive they say will ever be trusted, for good reason. Only reality offers stability and gains that can't be undone - with interest - with a few words.

...or worse yet, the population will eat it up, and the system can tell them whatever it wants. Including that it's all the fault of the Jews/Tutsi/etc., and that exterminating them is the answer. Grand lies either undermine authorities, or serve them rather the population. Only access to the truth allows for democratic control and seeking actual answer to deal with the problems reality pose. The lie have no place in politics or civic society at large, though people can of course cling to whatever delusions they want in their personal life, so long as they affect only themselves.

And there are indeed times, rare as they might be, where the rational thing to do would be to terminate ones existence, to be spared a future where suffering is the only option. Why would it be a bad thing to let people realize this, and give them the choice to terminate their existence to be spared this pain if they want?

@ Shoaken, I would also ask the following question about your argument:

You say in one sentence that Dent has effectively broken the Mob and rendered them ineffective. Yet in another sentence, you claim that the Mob is still a powerful entity, and 'back in full swing'. Which is it? Either the Mob is done for, in which case a review of Dent's cases would serve only to reinforce the judgement that these people should be in prison. Or the Mob is still in full swing, in which case it's obvious that Dent never achieved what everyone is praising him for in the first place.

Okay, I'll take you through it point by point;

* With Lao testifying against the mob, it turned the entire thing into an ENRICO case where every member of the mob was charged with the same crimes on the grounds that it was a conspiracy between all of them (which is not how ENRICO works, but we're talking about a series about a man dressed as a Bat punching people in the face)
* It's made clear that the only reason the case wasn't thrown out was because of Harvey Dent's reputation, and at the first hint of something off the whole case would fall apart.
* The gambit was that while the heads of the Mob could make bail, the middle and low level mobsters couldn't afford to, nor could they afford to fight the charges, so they'd plead out for lesser sentances.
* With those guys away, the mob has no one to do their dirty work for them, meaning no source of income, meaning they can't afford to bribe people like they did in the old day.

Then the Joker showed up and took the focus of the movie, but the amount of time passing between the mass arrests and the end of the film can't be that long, although Lao does testify against the mob before he gets burned alive.

Now here's the break point; if Dent's crimes are exposed, the case against the mob falls apart and everyone in that case gets let back out on the streets. Every last one of Dent's cases will be rexamined to make sure he wasn't compromised back then, and in any other city it would have been done fairly but in Gotham the mob has literally been able to get away with murder in front of judges and police officers by bribing anyone they had to. So with the mob back in full swing in a town like Gotham, all evidence points to the mob doing everything they can to destroy Harvey Dent's legacy and get everyone of their guys that he put away back out on the streets.

Now with Dent's crimes covered up, the case against the mob stands on it's own merits (Lao's testimony and all the evidence gathered tying the mob to the funds) and goes ahead smoothly. The mid and lower level mobsters plead out, leaving the mob with no workers to make an income, and the half of their funds that Joker didn't burn is either gone or in police custody. With no way to make more money and no money to buy new workers the mob can't operate in Gotham and they either leave for different cities or end up getting arrested themselves.

Also, you claim that Gordon knows Dent is a swell guy because of his days at Internal Affairs. Would those be the same days where the cops gave Dent the nickname 'Harvey Twoface'? Because as far as I'm aware, giving someone the nickname Twoface is a pretty big hint that they're not the paragon of moral virtue people would like. Perhaps Dent changed from his days at IA. But the point still stands: if Dent's time at Affairs led him to get the name Twoface, how does that suggest that his history is clean enough that Gordon can assume he was never corrupt or a bit looney while DA?

I hate to break this to you, but all cops everywhere hate Internal Affairs. Hate hate hate. Because they don't like the fact that someone is watching them for corruption and from their perspective getting in the way of justice. So if you think that the cops not liking someone from IA makes that guy dodgy, I'd like to point you to every cop show and movie in existence htat has Internal Affairs involved. Seriously, there's even a Trope about it;

You continuely refuse to acknowledge just how corrupt Gotham is when Gordon states that if he only took on cops who had never been investigated for corruption he'd be working by himself, and how in just about every potrayal of Gotham Gordon is one of only a handful of incorruptable cops. Gordon himself doesn't deny that Dent was right in investigating the cops who gave him the nickname, stating that he has to take who he can get.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked