Members onyxrhino Posted July 27, 2012 Members Share Posted July 27, 2012 ...and that article doesn't even get into the more specific elements in the film that echo OWS. Like the stock market scene (with the polic officer exchange outside about the nature of money, that really has nothing to do with the plot other than being a commentary on contemporary economics), or the whole Catwoman stuff with her warning Wayne that a revolution is coming and that the rich will fall and then her later "realizing" the error of her ways and how the new order isn't what she wanted. Or the scenes with the great unwashed masses taking over mansions and corporate buildings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members t-rey Posted July 27, 2012 Members Share Posted July 27, 2012 Good old Aristotle wasn't the only one apparentlyhttp://leftfilmreview.net/2012/07/20/the-dark-knight-rises-2012/ While I can see most of these points, I can't help but think it's a bit paranoid. It's like the author is searching for a reason that an action movie has intentional subtext to manipulate the population into accepting capitalism as it exists. I respect everyone's right to view and interpret the film as they choose. I simply choose to view it from a different angle - the plot device of a villain taking over a city and establishing an army is nothing new. Had they excluded the bit about the social unrest (which to me just adds a modern and relevant spin on it) it could have simply been any villain breaking a bunch of people out of jail or Arkham to do the same thing. I felt like Bane's 'public' intentions were very similar to those of the Joker in TDK - put people in a position where they will show their true colors and prove that we are not a civilized as we would like to believe we are. I realize that this may be considered an obtuse way of viewing the plot, and I respect those who feel that way. I just try not to read too much into comic book flicks, no matter how well done they may be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members V Posted July 27, 2012 Members Share Posted July 27, 2012 While I can see most of these points, I can't help but think it's a bit paranoid. It's like the author is searching for a reason that an action movie has intentional subtext to manipulate the population into accepting capitalism as it exists. I respect everyone's right to view and interpret the film as they choose. I simply choose to view it from a different angle - the plot device of a villain taking over a city and establishing an army is nothing new. Had they excluded the bit about the social unrest (which to me just adds a modern and relevant spin on it) it could have simply been any villain breaking a bunch of people out of jail or Arkham to do the same thing. I felt like Bane's 'public' intentions were very similar to those of the Joker in TDK - put people in a position where they will show their true colors and prove that we are not a civilized as we would like to believe we are. I realize that this may be considered an obtuse way of viewing the plot, and I respect those who feel that way. I just try not to read too much into comic book flicks, no matter how well done they may be. No, it's definitely not paranoid. Popular media are exactly the sort of things that have the most direct sway over the public. I noticed all that stuff while watching as well but I, who already lean towards that point of view heavily, saw it in a slightly different way. I didn't feel like I was supposed to disagree with Bane. I felt like, ok, he's brutal and a madman, but I felt the thing that made him interesting was his objective was actually sympathetic. He seemed more a tragic figure by the end, really. My other point of contention, as well, is that Batman actually gets his bearings again by LOSING all his money. It's when he's rich that he decides to putter around and do nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ryan. Posted July 27, 2012 Members Share Posted July 27, 2012 V you sound like Michael Savage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members eco1 Posted July 27, 2012 Members Share Posted July 27, 2012 i am going to watch it soon, i have my car full of guns Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members t-rey Posted July 27, 2012 Members Share Posted July 27, 2012 No, it's definitely not paranoid. Popular media are exactly the sort of things that have the most direct sway over the public. I noticed all that stuff while watching as well but I, who already lean towards that point of view heavily, saw it in a slightly different way. I didn't feel like I was supposed to disagree with Bane. I felt like, ok, he's brutal and a madman, but I felt the thing that made him interesting was his objective was actually sympathetic. He seemed more a tragic figure by the end, really. My other point of contention, as well, is that Batman actually gets his bearings again by LOSING all his money. It's when he's rich that he decides to putter around and do nothing. I do agree that Bane is a tragic character - I really liked the way they portrayed him in the film. And the point about Batman being motivated to change things by loosing everything - that he could no longer afford to be complacent. And while I agree that popular/mass media has an impact on public opinion, and it can (and has) been used to do so, I cannot find a reason that The Dark Knight Returns was intentionally meant to sway public opinion on social disparity, the occupy movement, etc. I don't see the motivation for the people making the film to include that. Yes, the plot of the movie heavily revolves around the issues of social inequality. But to a point that was present in the first two movies as well, and I don't feel like it's there to manipulate us. The reason I view that article as a bit paranoid is because the only way I can see the situation as the author does is that there is some shadowy figure - a financier, studio executive, etc. that forced this point onto the movie in order to manipulate public opinion. And maybe it's me being paranoid in thinking that the author of that article assumes the film was meant to manipulate us. It's probably apparent that I'm confusing myself at this point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members eco1 Posted July 27, 2012 Members Share Posted July 27, 2012 I do agree that Bane is a tragic character - I really liked the way they portrayed him in the film. And the point about Batman being motivated to change things by loosing everything - that he could no longer afford to be complacent. And while I agree that popular/mass media has an impact on public opinion, and it can (and has) been used to do so, I cannot find a reason that The Dark Knight Returns was intentionally meant to sway public opinion on social disparity, the occupy movement, etc. I don't see the motivation for the people making the film to include that. Yes, the plot of the movie heavily revolves around the issues of social inequality. But to a point that was present in the first two movies as well, and I don't feel like it's there to manipulate us. The reason I view that article as a bit paranoid is because the only way I can see the situation as the author does is that there is some shadowy figure - a financier, studio executive, etc. that forced this point onto the movie in order to manipulate public opinion. And maybe it's me being paranoid in thinking that the author of that article assumes the film was meant to manipulate us. It's probably apparent that I'm confusing myself at this point but if you want to fell like someone is manipulating you just turn on CNN (CPN) and Fox and be done with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members eco1 Posted July 27, 2012 Members Share Posted July 27, 2012 Oh and I didn't rate Rambo cause I only ever saw the first one i will rate Rambo for you 1/10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members V Posted July 27, 2012 Members Share Posted July 27, 2012 I do agree that Bane is a tragic character - I really liked the way they portrayed him in the film. And the point about Batman being motivated to change things by loosing everything - that he could no longer afford to be complacent. And while I agree that popular/mass media has an impact on public opinion, and it can (and has) been used to do so, I cannot find a reason that The Dark Knight Returns was intentionally meant to sway public opinion on social disparity, the occupy movement, etc. I don't see the motivation for the people making the film to include that. Yes, the plot of the movie heavily revolves around the issues of social inequality. But to a point that was present in the first two movies as well, and I don't feel like it's there to manipulate us. The reason I view that article as a bit paranoid is because the only way I can see the situation as the author does is that there is some shadowy figure - a financier, studio executive, etc. that forced this point onto the movie in order to manipulate public opinion. And maybe it's me being paranoid in thinking that the author of that article assumes the film was meant to manipulate us. It's probably apparent that I'm confusing myself at this point Alright, but intent doesn't really matter. If the movie does convey that message that's what matters, not what Nolan or anyone else meant to convey. If it's an accident it's not less problematic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members V Posted July 27, 2012 Members Share Posted July 27, 2012 V you sound like Michael Savage. Nice try padawan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members decode6 Posted July 27, 2012 Members Share Posted July 27, 2012 i think Nolan & Bale got caught up in their own movie fantasy of making the greatest movie ever in the history of the world.it backfired.what a p.o.s. movie. I think Forever Young had a stronger story line then this garbage.only redeeming factor was the unreal Marion Cotillard I think she was the worst character out of the whole cast, aside from Modine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members t-rey Posted July 27, 2012 Members Share Posted July 27, 2012 Alright, but intent doesn't really matter. If the movie does convey that message that's what matters, not what Nolan or anyone else meant to convey. If it's an accident it's not less problematic. Point taken. I have been caught up in the intentionality of the whole thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members onyxrhino Posted July 27, 2012 Members Share Posted July 27, 2012 The reason I view that article as a bit paranoid is because the only way I can see the situation as the author does is that there is some shadowy figure - a financier, studio executive, etc. that forced this point onto the movie in order to manipulate public opinion. And maybe it's me being paranoid in thinking that the author of that article assumes the film was meant to manipulate us. It's probably apparent that I'm confusing myself at this point you do realize that pretty much all the key decision-makers in creating this movie (the director, the producers, the studio execs, the actors, maybe the writers, etc.) are 1 percenters, right? Not saying that they all got together and said "let's make a point!", but it's not that hard to understand how pointedly anti-OWS material made its way into the film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members t-rey Posted July 27, 2012 Members Share Posted July 27, 2012 you do realize that pretty much all the key decision-makers in creating this movie (the director, the producers, the studio execs, the actors, maybe the writers, etc.) are 1 percenters, right? Not saying that they all got together and said "let's make a point!", but it's not that hard to understand how pointedly anti-OWS material made its way into the film. Of course I realize that successful movie executives, directors, ect are '1 percenters.' My (overly wordy) point was that I just couldn't see any purposeful intention in the subtext of the film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mirrorball Posted July 27, 2012 Members Share Posted July 27, 2012 you do realize that pretty much all the key decision-makers in creating this movie (the director, the producers, the studio execs, the actors, maybe the writers, etc.) are 1 percenters, right? Not saying that they all got together and said "let's make a point!", but it's not that hard to understand how pointedly anti-OWS material made its way into the film. You do realize this film was written before the OWS movement popped up, right? Hell, they had already filmed most of it when the first protests started. Now maybe there are some parallel themes or ideas. But it was not a direct commentary on OWS one way or the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members onyxrhino Posted July 27, 2012 Members Share Posted July 27, 2012 You do realize this film was written before the OWS movement popped up, right? Hell, they had already filmed most of it when the first protests started. Now maybe there are some parallel themes or ideas. But it was not a direct commentary on OWS one way or the other. that really doesn't mean anything. alot of scripts get rewritten throughout shooting. alot of films get significantly altered and overhauled in the post-production process. and a film like this had scores of reshoots even after principal photography ended, i'm sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mirrorball Posted July 27, 2012 Members Share Posted July 27, 2012 that really doesn't mean anything. alot of scripts get rewritten throughout shooting. alot of films get significantly altered and overhauled in the post-production process. and a film like this had scores of reshoots even after principal photography ended, i'm sure. That would be a hell of a lot of re-shooting (principal photography wrapped in mid-November 2011; OWS began in September 2011, so yeah, there's some overlap), which I don't recall reading about but I'm willing to be proven wrong on that. You can take Nolan's word or not, but here's what he had to say on the subject: We're going to get wildly different interpretations of what the film is supporting and not supporting, but it's not doing any of those things. It's just telling a story. If you're saying, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members onyxrhino Posted July 27, 2012 Members Share Posted July 27, 2012 That would be a hell of a lot of re-shooting (principal photography wrapped in mid-November 2011; OWS began in September 2011, so yeah, there's some overlap), which I don't recall reading about but I'm willing to be proven wrong on that.You can take Nolan's word or not, but here's what he had to say on the subject:http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/news/christopher-nolan-dark-knight-rises-isn-t-political-20120720 of course, Nolan isn't going to say his film is a criticism of this or that. Hell, radiohead claimed Hail to the Thief wasn't about Bush. Social commentary gets intentionally worked into alot of films via subtext or asides, but filmmakers won't usually outright say that their film is about this or that, because they don't want one issue to obscure everything else. It may ultimately be about telling the story for them, but they can't help but work their own political ideas into it as well. Plus for a filmmaker as commercial as Nolan, it wouldn't make any professional sense to cop to it either. Once again, I'm not saying that it necessarily is the case that anyone set out to reference OWS, but it would have been quite feasible for them to do so. Especially with two months of overlap and reshoots and second unit and all that goes into post-production. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members AngryGoldfish Posted July 27, 2012 Members Share Posted July 27, 2012 *spoilers throughout* Just finished watching TDKR. Alright, but intent doesn't really matter. If the movie does convey that message that's what matters, not what Nolan or anyone else meant to convey. If it's an accident it's not less problematic. It is less problematic. It doesn't remove all issues, but it certainly diminishes them greatly. Propaganda is dangerous because of the intent, not just because of the material publicized. If Nolan and the producer(s) never aimed to spread a particular point about social classes and whatnot, even if it just so happened to be that way because of excutive producers getting their hands dirty, you're only interpreting the movie that way, which is very similar to the way in which some have interpreted the Aurora shooting as a direct result of Bob Kane's work and Nolan's hugely successful trilogy. If there is no proof, in this case maybe a past history of spreading propaganda and highly one-sided politic views, it's just an opinion and merely coincidental. I can see what you're saying completely, but I don't think the integrity of the film should be questioned because of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kimme Posted July 27, 2012 Members Share Posted July 27, 2012 I don't think it was a happy ending. It might have been gullible to believe Batman had died, but Chris Nolan isn't afraid to do this kind of thing, and obviously neither was Jonathan Nolan. But the intensity of the build-up, the way it all came to a crashing climax, it made the supposed death of Batman overwhelming, which resonated even until finding out that he survived. That is good film-making, in my opinion. Being able to provoke sadness and then to allow that sadness to seep through until a point of relief, whilst always being satisfying, is a triumph. Yeah, "happy end" is pretty much the wrong word.I have to admit, i had different expectations on that movie. In the end it was a good,consistent ending for the trilogy but as a fan of the comics i just wanted it to be more grim and sarcastic.Good movie but "Batman begins" still remains my favorite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ryan. Posted July 27, 2012 Members Share Posted July 27, 2012 Nice try padawan. i was being srs. :| he made the same point yesterday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members AngryGoldfish Posted July 27, 2012 Members Share Posted July 27, 2012 Yeah, "happy end" is pretty much the wrong word.I have to admit, i had different expectations on that movie. In the end it was a good,consistent ending for the trilogy but as a fan of the comics i just wanted it to be more grim and sarcastic.Good movie but "Batman begins" still remains my favorite. Yeah, BB is still my favourite, but only by a small amount. It's actually a lot like The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, where the Fellowship was the best movie, the second one was great but the middle child, and the third one was just as good but far more intense and emotive due to the prior movies and because it was a conclusion. Like what Mark Kermode said in his review for Radio 5, it's not the ending that makes it special; it's everything that goes before it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dr. Goldenglove Posted July 28, 2012 Members Share Posted July 28, 2012 Enjoyed it, but not as much as Dark Knight. The main reason probably being that Bane was boring, imo, compared to the Joker. He seemed like a very typical villain to me, albeit a huge and clever one. My favourite parts of Dark Knight where the ones where Joker got to speak or where his plans got revealed - and those plans were much more interesting than the "explosives in the cement" thing. Nothing like that here. The back-story of Bane and Tate seemed very cliche to me, too. All in all, a good movie, but without the weirdness and interesting plot turns of the second one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jakkeh Posted July 28, 2012 Members Share Posted July 28, 2012 We're all about to die in 5 minutes, let's have a kiss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members fuzzface71 Posted July 28, 2012 Members Share Posted July 28, 2012 I just watched Batman Begins again...the TDKR is basically a continuation of that story.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.