Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

SCPantherFan90

Interesting Thoughts on the New Batman Film

43 posts in this topic

confirmation bia.........s

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was I the only one who felt a sense of joy when Heinz Field was destroyed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh God Jesus Lord Christ. It is a fusion reactor, which is how it generates energy. And as such, could be used as a weapon.

Here is a production still of it. Wayne Enterprises Fusion Reactor.

ftI86.jpg

Well, you got me there, haha. However, that Miranda chick explains that the device is to be used for free energy before any mention of fusion reactor. Also, try not to have a heart attack over there :)

Yeah if you look at the movie on the surface level, it feels like an extremely hamfisted corporatist propaganda piece, but that is, like I said, surface level. ie if you look at it and say "Bane says some populist stuff, Bane is the bad guy, therefor corporatism is good." But that is a retarded way to look at a story. In reality he is corruption using populism as a trojan horse, and he is killed by the actual populist (Catwoman).

I totally agree, and I also think there are plenty of people who go to see this movie and don't think any farther than that.

I'm not sure that we were supposed to feel bad for them. I saw it as a schadenfreude moment. Especially with Daggett and his assistant guy being killed. I mean Daggett was the absolute embodiment of wealthy elitist weaselly corporatism, and the film was very clear about portraying him as a villain. When he confronted Bane with "I've paid you a small fortune," and Bane says "And you think that gives you power over me?" and kills him, I can't imagine anyone actually thinking "No! Bane didn't honor their arrangement! He should have had power over Bane!" It was two evil forces meeting, and a villain killing a villain, which is how I see the whole exiling thing. Besides Gordon, the people they sent onto the ice were all weaselly looking assholes, if they wanted you to relate or sympathize, they would have been healthy, normal people.

Daggett is a huge wrench in the theory that it's a right wing message. The movie goes out of its way to show that the corporate side is a villain, too.

A valid point. I don't think anyone could argue that the wealthy were painted in a sympathetic light. I do find it interesting though that Bane's actions with punishing the wealth and balancing the classes, etc. was all just to give the people false hope so he could rip it away.

Also, anyone that goes into a movie such as this one looking for political messages is probably going to find the message they want to find..

Hell, I believe that goes for many things, not just looking for political messages in movies. But, I'm not the type to go into a movie theater and look for all these hidden agendas or whatever. The movie just gave me a weird vibe, nothing more or less. And, yes, directors are obviously going to have control over most of what they create, but the companies who pay for these films have their due influence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, anyone that goes into a movie such as this one looking for political messages is probably going to find the message they want to find..

there are movies with political messages that can be clear and applicable to the political climate at the time of the film, but imo this one wasn't really applicable to today's society because Bane's objectives were so far removed from what is going on (or at least what most of us think is going on ;) ), that I just can't see anyone actually watching this movie and going, "man look what happens if we don't vote Obummer out of office!" or "Oh god, Romney... Bain.. BANE... OH GOD!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nolan has been pretty clear that he wasn't really going for any political message per se. Still fun to read into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah... well, he's certainly got several angles there that people can speculate about, but I don't think there is a very clear political message designed to sway people one way or another in the film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the new movie, you have Bane more or less trick Gotham's 99 percent into rising up against the rich – is that intended as an anti-Occupy Wall Street statement?

I've had as many conversations with people who have seen the film the other way round. We throw a lot of things against the wall to see if it sticks. We put a lot of interesting questions in the air, but that's simply a backdrop for the story. What we're really trying to do is show the cracks of society, show the conflicts that somebody would try to wedge open. 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, “Have you made a film that's supposed to be criticizing the Occupy Wall Street movement?” – well, obviously, that's not true.

But the movie certainly suggests that there's a great danger of populist movements being pushed too far.

If the populist movement is manipulated by somebody who is evil, that surely is a criticism of the evil person. You could also say the conditions the evil person is exploiting are problematic and should be addressed.

You must have your own opinions on all this.

Oh, I've got all sorts of opinions, but this isn't what we're doing here. I love when people get interested in the politics of it, when they see something in it that moves them in some way. But I'm not being disingenuous when I say that we write from a place of “What's the worst thing our villain Bane can do? What are we most afraid of?” He's going to come in and turn our world upside down. That has happened to other societies throughout history, many times, so why not here? Why not Gotham? We want something that moves people and gets under the skin.

Some people would say, inherently, from the beginning, that Batman is a right-wing character, who establishes law and order by pummeling criminals with his fists.

Yes, if you assume Gotham is the same as a place like New York City, but that's not the case. The corruption that drives Bruce Wayne to become Batman is very extreme. So, you know, your concept of “Does the end justify the means?” shifts according to the backdrop. And so the challenge of Batman Begins was to make us OK with the idea of vigilantism. The films genuinely aren't intended to be political. You don't want to alienate people, you want to create a universal story.

A lot of people would argue that all art is political.

But what's politics?

So would Bruce Wayne vote for Mitt Romney?

Before or after Bruce goes broke?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites