FaxModem1 wrote: 2017-11-28 09:07pm
The Romulan Republic wrote: 2017-11-28 08:34pm
You mean "Supports the people who aren't nuclear terrorists holding a city hostage?"
Bane and Talia cared as much for the working class as Donald Trump does.
Yes, Bane and Talia are psychotic terrorists, but the film conflates that with class warfare.
Sort of, but I don't think the intention of the film was to say "Working class people who are dissatisfied with the status quo are terrorists", like you seem to think. The suffering of the poor of Gotham is acknowledged repeatedly in Nolan's films (and one of the reasons behind Gotham's corruption), even if its not the main focus, both Bruce and his father are philanthropists, and the only one on the "bad guys''" side in DKR who actually gives a real shit about the poor at all, Selina, is the most sympathetically portrayed and the one who ultimately is portrayed in a heroic light.
I think the intent was more to show how those legitimate complaints could be highjacked by fanatics and tyrants for their own ends, with the result that innocent people end up getting hurt without it actually making things better. Which is a common pattern throughout history- I've read that part of Nolan's inspiration for the film was
A Tale of Two Cities, and thus, the French Revolution/the Reign of Terror.
I do think it was a mistake to bring themes of class warfare overtly into the film without giving more time to develop those themes, given the complex and contentious nature of the topic. It muddles the film, and carries likely unintended negative implications.
The Dark Knight Rises's problem isn't ultimately that different from
Batman v Superman's, structurally, though its not quite identical. Where
Batman v Superman feels like scenes from several pretty good movies awkwardly and loosely stitched together, DKR feels like two movies shoved together at the middle, without being very well-integrated, with the consequence that the second half of the film is rushed and under-developed.
Honestly, I think it probably should have been two films: the first a loose adaptation of Knightfall, and the second entirely devoted to being a loose adaptation of No Man's Land, with more exploration of Gotham under Bane's rule and how various people view it.
And the film still has Bruce give up on the poor after his enemy(the mob) were defeated and the citizens of Gotham when he can, and saying, "Not my problem, an unemployed former cop with no funds whatsoever can do what I did. I'm sure an old Batsuit will do the job." And that's not assuming that Gotham's coast isn't radioactive and everyone there dies from radiation poisoning within the next year or so.
Bruce completely cutting himself off after Rachel and Dent's deaths was a mistake, but one resulting from despair, not callousness or privilege. The film acknowledges it as such.
I think we're supposed to assume that Gotham isn't going to all die of radiation, yes. I don't personally have an issue with that, any more than I demand an Endor Holocaust after RotJ. That bomb didn't work like an actual nuke anyway.
As to Bruce quitting the city at the end of the film... he lost all his money earlier in the film, remember? His company was history. He didn't have the resources he previously had, and I'm not sure how much longer he physically could have gone on being Batman, given the strain on his body his prior career was already having.
He gave years of his life, his happiness, his fortune, and very nearly his life to protecting Gotham. I think he's done enough. The city was fine until Bane and Talia came along. There's no reason it can't get by without Bruce afterward. And I actually like that ending very much, because it takes advantage of the fact that Nolan's trilogy is a self-contained series to subvert the usual "Gotham can never be saved" status quo, and let Batman actually win. Its quite refreshing.
Nolan-Batman is also a fan of a system that locks up people without hope of appeal forever, as shown in the
Dent Act,
Did he ever actually say anything in the film endorsing the Dent Act? I don't recall, and it was passed while he was basically cutting himself off from everything.
He was willing to let Selina start over, after all. Although that could just be due to his attraction to her, I suppose.
I mean, Selina in the film is pretty much the poster child for "being a criminal doesn't necessarily make you irredeemable", though.
and considering Catwoman was locked up in prison without trial,
Was that ever stated in the film? I mean, people are held in prison awaiting trial. It could just be that Bane attacked before she could stand trial.
There's no indication that the Constitution is no longer in force in Nolan-verse America. The Dent Act wouldn't account for that.
Although maybe if they argued that Selina was an "enemy combatant"...
and the movie's theme of society being
better for everyone to believe in a lie, it sends the message that lying to the people, rich should be kept in place, and that the only alternative is insane criminals trying to kill everyone to balance everything, so it should be opposed.
I think you are reading a lot more into it than is necessarily there on screen.
I could just as reasonably argue that your message is "Bloody overthrow of the rich by the poor is always justified, no matter how high the cost or how much collateral damage their is." It would be about as reasonable a conclusion- ie, not very.
The portrayal of the lie behind the Dent Act is ambiguous. Its portrayed as a necessary deception at the end of The Dark Knight, but we see the price of that in this film, when Bane exposes the deception to boost his own propaganda. Note that Robin calls Gordon out on it when the truth comes out.
I mean, it is a film about a heroic rich man in a city full of poor people. There's no getting around that, and that baggage has to be handled carefully. But I think you are somewhat cherry-picking aspects of the film that fit the interpretation you have, when the overall message, if there is one, is more ambiguous.
That said, it is a bit muddled, and that is a mark against Nolan as director.
Ender wrote: 2017-11-29 01:48am
The Romulan Republic wrote: 2017-11-28 06:37pm
I don't get why the films have to pass the billion mark to be considered successes. Sure, if your only definition of "success" is "massive blockbuster", but their are many movies that turn a tidy profit, and are well-recieved, without hitting a benchmark only a handful of films in history have reached.
Because Hollywood doesn't work the way people think it does. It's business model isn't the creation of films; it is basically a VC pit looking for intellectual property franchises.
Look, if you wanted to consistently make a strong return on films - ones that aren't super expensive to produce but you almost never miss in making back 4 times what they cost to make - you know what you would make? Movies about family drama centered on the experiences of African Americans. Dig in the numbers and there is a strong block of black middle aged adults that regularly go to the theater as their primary entertainment and they watch the kinds of stuff middle aged adults tend to watch. Look at the returns on The Butler or Fences. If you want to get rich making movies, that's where the fucking money is.
But they don't do that because making movies isn't the business of Hollywood. Of all the industries out there, Hollywood was one of the first that Wall Street gobbled up. Now it is generate a stable of intellectual properties that land mega hits because the megahits are promotions for the properties. That boosts the estimated value of the properties, which boosts your books which is then sliced and diced into financial instruments that fly around traders. Keep shoveling in cash because even if it isn't generating a profit, it's expected value is going up up UP BABY!
There's some truth to this, but I think perhaps exaggerated. Their are popular and successful movies, even successful, long-lasting franchises, where no single film passed, or even approached, the billion mark.
If that is now considered the bench-mark for success, I don't think we'll be seeing a lot of long-lived film series in the future. Which will ultimately hurt the franchises, the IPs, and the companies.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver
"The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan."-General Von Clauswitz, describing my opinion of Bernie or Busters and third partiers in a nutshell.
I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE TO REMOVE TRUMP FROM OFFICE.
