|
fiercehairdo -> RE: More Right Wing Bat Politics (17/7/2012 5:47:35 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44
quote:
ORIGINAL: fiercehairdo
quote:
ORIGINAL: Woger
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44
quote:
ORIGINAL: fiercehairdo
OK, I'm sure this post is gonna get the Nolan fanboy's foaming at the mouth but it has to be said...
Read this short article which sums up Nolan's Bat Franchise strong tendency to endorse very iffy Right-Wing politics: http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2012/jul/17/dark-knight-rises-capitalist-superhero
I completely agree with this piece.
The truth is, The Dark Knight endorsed torture, Extraordinary Rendition, phone-tapping and mass invasion of privacy by the film's 'hero'. It endorsed suspending peoples rights in the cause of fighting terrorism. In other words it endorsed the fascistic neo-con right wing politics of Bush, Cheney et al.
The Dark Knight Rises portrays the Billionaire as the good guy, imposing his will on the anarchic masses (read Occupy movement) who are in fact in thrall to criminal thugs like Bane. Anyone watching the news lately cannot have failed to have notice that in reality the billionaires (Murdoch, Diamond etc) of the world rarely are operating for the wider good and the protesting masses (Occupy movement) very often have justice and moral good on their side. TDKR inverts this view to billionaires good, protesting masses bad.
In other words it just continues and emphasises the deeply retrograde, conservative, right wing politics of the previous film.
Yes they are very slick, quite exciting and stylish films. BUT if we are going to take them seriously as great movies please lets not ignore the wider message of the films: that human rights and laws can be suspended by the wealthy if they believe what they do is right; that vigilante action is justifiable; that torturers are heroes when operating with the right intentions; that capitalist wealth domination is a force for good and movements like Occupy need to be suppressed. A pretty depressing agenda in my view.
I know many are going to reply "it's just a fantasy; it's just a film about a man dressed as a bat - don't take it too seriously". But frankly those same people are often the ones comparing these films to The Godfather and Citizen Kane - are we taking them seriously or not??? Indeed Nolan and his collaborators seem to be taking it VERY seriously hence the portentous tone of the franchise. If it is a masterpiece as people claim it should be seriously examined, and if it is ultimately pushing a very conservative agenda on audiences under the disguise of stunning action and various bat-gadgets well that needs exposing. Especially since the mass love-in of Nolan has now got completely out of hand.
Bring on the attacks...
It doesn't endorse all of them.
Batman beats the Joker up and it amounts to nothing.
Batman uses the sonic technology but Fox stands up to him.
The movie isn't about endorsement - it is about what are the limits people are willing to go to protect their society. Nolan tests the various ideas that underpinned the War on Terror. In some instances it works, in most it doesn't. It is hardly an endorsement of the Bush culture but rather a mirror to it. Big difference.
Correct me if I'm wrong but in the 1989 Batman didn't he bomb an entire factory and do much similar stuff to these current films, only difference being the latest films tend to be set against more realistic contemporary backgrounds.
I wonder does fiercehairdo get worked up as much with Michael Moores films and their agenda?
Fox stands up to the phone-tapping thing but it's a pretty empty gesture since he actively collaborated in the rendition of the guy from Hong Kong and most of Batman's other dodgy tactics. The film just wanted to have its cake and eat it - condemn it then indulge in it.
And the Rendition, torture of Maroney and phone-tapping/survellance is shown to work and the presentation of Batman as a hero for using these methods amounts to endorsement. Even his one moral code about not killing is undermined in the end by Batman killing Harvey Dent. Morally, the best that can be said about these films is they are very confused, and the worst that they amount to right-wing propaganda.
And yes of course lots of Hollywood produce is rightwing violent dumbness. But then that stuff isn't usually held up as a masterpiece of art that we should take seriously. I'm just applying the judgement criteria I'd apply to any great work of cinema - look at the deeper meanings and give them due consideration. The more one thinks about these films rather than just revelling in the stylish action, the more they become very questionable.
The film time and again questions the motivations of Batman - "You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain" does't just apply to Dent.
The challenges you to consider the War on Terror - and just because it suggests that some of the immoral actions can lead to results doesn't make it an endorsement. Look what happens to our hereos - Batman loses the woman he loves; Dent also loses her and becomes disformed and Gordon has his family kidanpped and threatened. Hardly a great victory for them.
Time and again there actions prove to be ineffective against the Joker. It is through the people of Gotham showing their goodness, does the Jokers plan unravel.
As for Batman killing Dent. Is is really murder to stop someone from killing another? Batman threw him over- but I doubt he anticpated the fall and so on. I think there is a code...but it has limits. The life of an innocent kid, or the life of Dent - that was the dice he was dealt with.
You are also wanting to have your cake and eat it. You want to explore the themes, but only with the angle of it being a right wing fantasy, when it is far more complex than that. Unless you are suggesting blockbusters shouldn't look at these issues, and balance them up, and challenge audiences?
And by the by - when did films with a right wing slant become bad full stop? Are left leaning films somehow better? It is about how the issues are explored and what measures are used. In the Dark Knight the Bush stuff is in there, but to focus soley on that is to ignore the other side of the coin.
I take your point on a lot of this. But ultimately I do think the film does come down on the Bush/Cheney side of things - something I personally find hard to swallow. Furthermore, right-wing biased films aren't necessarily bad full stop, but I would say films endorsing torture are promoting a very bad idea. Full stop. No question, that is a very dodgy message in any film, but in a comic book based film aimed at young people and children - very, very iffy in my opinion. But feel free to defend torture endorsing movies 'cause they're exciting - thousands do unfortunately.
|
|
|
|
