Check out the trailer for the new Batman movie. In it, one of the villains says: "You're all gonna wonder how you could ever thought you could live so large and leave so little for the rest of us" and it looks like some kind of leftist revolution is taking place.
The leaders of the revolution are basically terrorists bent on destroying civilization (Gotham City).
Thoughts?
Yeah, that quote intrigued me when I first heard it. But I can take it either way. Either as you might think, pro-capitalist, or possibly pro-"99%ers" depending on how it actually concludes.
I know I am stoked to go see it!
The only one worth following is the one who leads... not the one who pulls; for it is not the direction that condemns the puller, it is the rope that he holds.
Hopefully it is pro-capitalist, as the "bad guys" are clearly leftists, but we will see (you never know with Hollywood)!
I saw Joker as the "good thing that seems bad to people" aspect of capitalism (burning the money, talking about creating "chaos" for the "planners") in the last movie. Batman was also the element of capitalism that no one likes, but ultimately does good.
Bruce Wayne is also the ultra rich guy that spends enormous amounts of money on preventing crimes that the state doesn't protect under its monopoly.
Aristophanes:I saw Joker as the "good thing that seems bad to people" aspect of capitalism (burning the money, talking about creating "chaos" for the "planners") in the last movie. Batman was also the element of capitalism that no one likes, but ultimately does good. Bruce Wayne is also the ultra rich guy that spends enormous amounts of money on preventing crimes that the state doesn't protect under its monopoly. But didn't the Joker rob banks and blow up a lot of shit (violating property rights)? "Nutty as squirrel shit." | Post Points: 20
But didn't the Joker rob banks and blow up a lot of shit (violating property rights)?
Two thoughts, Yes, he did those things, but bad things happen in the market. He talks about chaos, not liberty.
Also, Johnny Depp in the movie that he plays John Dilligner says while robbing a bank, "We're not taking your money, we're taking the banks money, they'll just print more." (or something to that effect) He mentions the Fed Res by name in the movie as well.
Personally, I don't think that property is "property" if it is acquired by illegitimate means. Banks usually fall whole heartedly into this category.
Well, today we shall see whether or not Hollywood has slipped up and allowed a pro-capitalist film to be released! Time to illegally watch the movie on the internet go to the theater!
The end of the movie concludes by bringing order back but it never rectifies the specific the attacks. If you wish to destroy an idea you must use another idea. The movie simply resorted to violence. You accept the part where cat woman was commenting that the Wayne mansion was someone's home or the vague references to Batman's morality.
The movie will give leftists the fantasy of chaos to revel.
Catwoman's speech in the trailer doesn't lend much hope.
You think this could last. There's a storm coming Mr. Wayne. You and your friends better batten down the hatches. Cause when it hits, you're all gonna wonder how you ever thought you could live so large, and leave so little for the rest of us.
Its not enough for her to lift his diamonds. She has to remind him what a greedy bastard he is.
From what I've read from critics, it has some occupy wall street style themes to it. Probably gonna have a pretty left wing orientation to it.
Buzz, look at Batman as a hero (not a superhero, since he has no superpowers [not wanting to start a separate debate on that, but I'm willing to vehemently defend my claim lol]). He's against guns; he believes he has an imperative to fund the city (as in the subway, which his father built), he's mostly black. He's clearly a liberal!
I saw Joker as the "good thing that seems bad to people" aspect of capitalism (burning the money, talking about creating "chaos" for the "planners") in the last movie. Batman was also the element of capitalism that no one likes, but ultimately does good. Bruce Wayne is also the ultra rich guy that spends enormous amounts of money on preventing crimes that the state doesn't protect under its monopoly.
Good points. I thought it was funny that The Joker dislikes "plotters and schemers" but he himself was a "plotter and schemers".
SPOILER WARNING!!!!
There were some good quotes by Bruce Wayne.
One of them was, to paraphrase: Charity balls are about feeding the egos of the people hosting them.
The movie is also pro-state, however. Ultimately, the cops are portayed as heros who take on Bane's army in a battle a la Gangs of New York.
Bane's army are mercenaries, which shines a bad light on "private" contractors.
However, Bane's revolution is shown for what most "revolutions" are.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
I'm sure the movie will empathise with the villian (Assuming that the villain really is an extreme leftist.), because at the end of the day we are not the majority of ticket buyers in this country.
@Daniel: Well, it's pretty normal that it's not anti-state, but I think it's still in some sense sympathetic to the economic right wing, and I'd side with the state police over communist rebels any day.
thetabularasa:Buzz, look at Batman as a hero (not a superhero, since he has no superpowers [not wanting to start a separate debate on that, but I'm willing to vehemently defend my claim lol]). He's against guns; he believes he has an imperative to fund the city (as in the subway, which his father built), he's mostly black. He's clearly a liberal!
Maybe, but what matters most is the plot of the movie. I haven't seen it yet so I can't say, I'm going to watch it in a few minutes.
Can we make this a spoiler thread? I think that the film actually had some interesting intellectual points, although it handled them in a rather non-intellectual way, and at any rate I'd like to discuss them.
I really don't think that this movie was as political as some people are trying to make it out to be. I mean, on the flip side, you can argue that Nolan did a good job of also showing how completely imcompitent policeman can be.
Neodoxy: Can we make this a spoiler thread? I think that the film actually had some interesting intellectual points, although it handled them in a rather non-intellectual way, and at any rate I'd like to discuss them.
Sure, how do we do that?
Jmorris seems to have figured it out.
I just came accross this. Some spoilers:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/07/20/Spoiler-Alert-TDKR-Most-Conservative-Movie-Ever
Definitely anti-leftist:
http://gawker.com/5927095/bane-creator-chuck-dixon-limbaughs-batman-conspiracy-theory-ridiculous--im-a-staunch-conservative
SPOILER
The only thing I didn't like in the movie were the police: not just for their glorification, but mostly because of their ridiculous massed march down the street vs. machine guns and tanks. Ever heard of taking cover? I was thinking how nonsensical such tactics were in the earlier scene in which they all poured in underground, but the above ground part was even worse. Obviously both scenes were merely plot devices.
Also, in regard to the article you posted, I think the funniest exchange in the movie was (and I paraphrase):
Miranda: You should invest in clean energy.
Wayne: Not all investments pay off.
I think I was the only one in the cinema who laughed, though.
My take is that it is anti-capitalist. When the bad guys spout their BS about the rich, it is not delivered in such a way that you get the idea you are supposed to hate the bad guys. It feels more like they are giving a human element to the bad guys.
Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under - Mencken
The film seemed more Randian to me than anything.
Pse, he is pro-Romney. Not very capitalist if you ask me.
Well, I said anti-leftist.
I disagree that that makes the film anti-capitalist. Both Bane and Kyle wanted to overthrow the existing order. The difference between the former and the latter was that while Bane revelled in the resulting destruction, Kyle repented of it. I think Nolan included this sympathetic element on purpose to draw in the OWS types, only to turn the tables on them and argue that the destruction of the current order leads to a worse result than the status quo. This was all for cinematic effect: to have subtlety and ambiguity rather than the cliched 'good guys' and 'bad guys', and also for Kyle's character development. There were no excuses for Bane ala 'the right stage of capitalism hadn't been reached yet', but on the contrary Kyle changed her mind about the revolution even before she knew the bomb would go off no matter what (as I recall).
Aristippus,
Nolan probably wrote that in because that is pretty close to how Bane and Catwoman act in the comics. He didn't make these characters up himself. He made some changes but their behaviour was more or less the same as it is in the comics.
I've noticed that a lot of people are trying really hard to make it seem like Nolan had a lot of political motivations with how he wrote this movie. Not sure if people read the Cataclysm and No Man's Land stories but he obviously used some ideas from these stories for the movie.
I just saw the movie and it wasn't pro-capitalist by any stretch of the imagination. The villain tried to impose anarchy on the city (bad), ultimately just wanting to kill everyone (cliche bad). The villains weren't portrayed as bad because they wanted to enforce their will on others, but because anarchy doesn't work and only evil mean stupid people will take over if anarchy were ever put in place. Police were glorified, and the whole thing just stunk of "status quo" pandering. The catwoman, who stole from the rich to help the needy out was not vilainized at all. She was either borderline or outright praised depending on how you look at it. She wasn't punished or even scolded for her thievery in the entire movie. So ya, I totally called it. Also, Bat Man in this series has been a totally forgettable super hero. No one really knows what the hell he fights for, and neither does he. He fights people that are violent psychopaths. Who wouldn't? Ho hum.
I don't know about the villains not being portrayed negatively--they murdered a ton of people and attempted to murder millions more. That doesn't sound like anarchy to me despite whatever dialogue he speaks about "setting the people free" (I see the French Revolution parallel without too much of a stretch).
The film depicts the culture of anti-capitalism as vapid and silly, ultimately resulting in destruction brought upon by a 'great equalizer'.
Catwoman wasn't villainized because she served as the dynamic protagonist that ultimately realized that the commune-like conditions that she initially championed was only a farce and results in horrific chaos. Not to mention that she is arrested and taken into custody for her thievery.
He fights people that are violent psychopaths. Who wouldn't? Ho hum.
So you prefer your action movies to have unrelatable protagonists? And I suppose Silence of the Lambs is boring because Buffalo Bill and Hannibal Lecter are violent psychopaths.
I really liked this movie and this franchise, far more depth than any superhero series has ever had. Other than the heroic exploits of the cops (even though they were not acting on behalf of the state, but rather a human self interest for survival), I don't see a whole lot to dislike about this film.
I don't pick up on every movie that comes out and wonder if it's capitalist or anti-capitalist, and since I'm the only one here who has an interest in scholars who write on "reactionary" views I sort of have a sympathetic interest in Bane and the League of Shadows. They see Gotham as a materialistic city in decay from it's own decadence, that it would be better to just destroy it all and start over new. If I could go further it's closer to Nietzsche's active nihilism, and in some aspects to "ride the tiger" until it's all over.
TBH it would be like us going over and breaking down the economic pursuits of Memento and Inception. Who cares? It's far from the point of the movie.
Interesting: I would probably view "decadent materialism" as the exact opposite of decay.
More to the point I don't see how Nietzsche could make any sense or be worth anything if he promoted any form of Platonized romantic anti-social behvaior. I never thought of Nietzsche in this light.
Than again, asmuch as I utilize and like Nietzsche - I am something like a liberal Stirnerite-Mengerian; I forget sometimes I am not a Nietzschean and he ends up moralizing in the end - and is probably to be used as a top notch auxillary philosopher to point to things when trying to set up an initial picture of "Austrianism".
I would also take umbrage with the term nihilist as a metaphysical starting position...as I view that in direct contrast with egoist. Nietzsche was not a nihilist (and perhaps not an uber-egoist, none the less he was closer to egoism).
On the movie being pro capitalist:
Not really. It's about wanting to blow something up dramatically due to vengence...and the people who know things are going to be blown sky high trying to prevent such a measure - that's it. Bane / Talia are just acting out a plan of revenge
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
Well, decadent has the meaning of decay (unless my online dictionary is wrong), so I sort of just made a redundant statement, but Gotham has a lot of wealth and at the same time is filled with decay, it goes even further how corrupt it's own "organs" are. You have the extravagant egotistical parties and people trying to "find work" in sewers.
When it comes to Nietzsche I'm borrowing the term "active nihilism" from a traditionalist stance, but this may also be in the sense of any type of decay and instead of trying to fix or counter it simply let it take it's course and try the best to be the one on top when shit hits the fan.
I was using something closer to definition 2 and even shades of 3:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/decadent
I think when using "decadent" meaning "decay" it could work, but I would look at it as more of an "empty set" tautology.
simply let it take it's course and try the best to be the one on top when shit hits the fan.
Oh well depending on how this is used that's fine (though I don't know where nihilism comes in). This goes at least somewhat along with creative-destruction,Hayekian naturalism, and Menger and Bohm-Bawerk's views on fashionable but incorrect ideas in academia.
Of course it's impractical and silly to analyze every Christopher Nolan movie, but I feel that TDKR has far more relevant themes to our interests at Mises than any others: It is specifically noted in the first film that the League of Shadows used "economic" tactics to try to bring down Gotham's infrastructure, which we see tied in with Talia in the third film. There are also conspicuous themes of class warfare/socio-economic disparity. And I also am sympathetic with the villains from the movies; their characters are painted in more than the usual black and white--the Joker was a victim of domestic abuse, Bane was enslaved and tortured, Scarecrow has mental disorders.
And of course the point of the movie is removed from this discussion; the point is to entertain. But in doing so it has depicted some relevant themes about what we all love discussing--whether or not you wish to do so. Plus, the movie was awesome and they killed Batman.
Batman didn't die.
Perhaps he means spiritually?
Dark Knight Rises: It's Politics and Ours, by Jeffrey Tucker http://lfb.org/today/dark-knight-rises-its-politics-and-ours/
Finally, we get to the true meat of the debate: Did Batman die?
Of course Chris Nolan is notorious for ambiguous endings, but, dammit, Batman can't survive an atomic blast. Alfred was daydreaming. Bruce Wayne didn't fear death and thought that his martyrdom was ultimately necessary.
Maybe the entire movie was Alred's dream. Batman didn't die; he was seen in Florence with the girl from The Princess Diaries.
If Batman did die, then the ending sucked. How's the next movie going to begin; with the funeral? Then another two hours of Robin and Catwoman teaming up? Might as well add a twist at the end where we see Batman's eyes open while he's six feet under, leaving ambiguity and stuff for the following film.
There will be no more Chris Nolan batman movies. His trilogy took a whole new life unto themselves and so I think it's fitting to leave the last movie ambiguous as to the fate of Batman. Whether or not (in the story) Bruce Wayne survives, Batman is dead regardless because he finally vindicates himself in the eyes of Gotham (i.e., the Batman statue revealed in the end) and retires for good.
And despite what Alfred says earlier in the movie about how he wishes to quietly acknowledge Bruce Wayne in Florence someday once he's found a new life for himself--I don't buy that once Alfred has been shown weeping and talking about how he's failed Bruce that his reaction to suddenly finding out he's alive would be so subtle and subdued. But, just like Inception, Chris Nolan intentionally left many clues supporting either ending, but I think the most realistic is that Bruce Wayne the person is dead but the spirit and essense of Batman lives on through his impact on Gotham and the other protagonists.