It would have been real easy, after the critical and commercial success of The Dark Knight (not to mention Inception) for Christopher Nolan to play it safe with the conclusion of his Batman trilogy. Instead he defies audience expectations and turns in an even more ambitious movie, The Dark Knight Rises.
Once again writing with his brother Jonathan, from a tale conceived with David S. Goyer, Nolan draws on key plot points from the Dark Knight Returns, Knightfall, and Earthquake comic book storylines, resulting in a nearly three-hour long production.
“I wanted something more for you than that. I still do.” –Alfred
Gotham City is apparently enjoying the justice of the king, a period of relative peace going on eight years, since the disappearance of Batman, presumed responsible for the death of Harvey Dent. The deception weighs on Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) as well as Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale). Bruce now solely wanders the halls of Wayne Manor while being tended to by the ever-loyal Alfred (Michael Caine), who has known and cared for him since he was a boy.
Two strong women pop into Bruce’s life to draw him back out into the public to tend to his various responsibilities: Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard), who’s heading up a clean-energy initiative and Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway), a cat burglar channeling the Black Widow, who’s caught mid-break-in of Wayne Manor. Also entering his life is a young cop, John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), who shares many of Bruce’s childhood traumas.
However, it takes the appearance of Bane (Tom Hardy) to draw out Batman. The geek community grumbled with the selection of Bane as the features central villain (though after the Joker and Two-Face, not to mention a deft use of the Scarecrow, it’s not like there was a huge clamor for the Penguin or the Mad Hatter). In Nolan’s tale, Bane, under the seeming Sean Connery impersonation, is a mercenary who wears a mask to neutralize the pain of his wounds. Rather than injecting venom to give him strength (ala his comic book role), he’s a former member of the League of Shadows, the same group that taught Bruce/Batman.
As part of Bane’s convoluted plan, buildings and social structures collapse under attack. Anarchy reigns, with prisoners (including the Scarecrow) being released. They hold court, judging various political and financial leaders for their crimes against the underclass. Evoking 9/11 trauma as well as the Occupy Movement, the movie touches on a lot of hot spots, but at its core, it’s also about the emotional and physical cost of being Batman.
“You’re not living. You’re just waiting.” –Alfred
Everyone has to find a way to deal with the pain, suffering, and tragedy that comes with life. It’s all about moving on. For Bruce, having to learn to hide the anger, putting on the mask, has been his way of coping things. Being Batman was his self-medication. He fought the decadence of Gotham with/under his own moral authority.
But now Bruce has reached a point where he is tired of fighting, worn out by the struggle to do better. He’s been wounded by the failure of his life’s plan. He’s lost hope that he may ever find wholeness or the light, feeling broken, beyond repair, as if something is fundamentally wrong with him and he doesn’t know if he’ll ever be fixed. Afraid to be around others for fear of saddling them with all of his baggage, letting them see him at his lowest, or worse, letting his disgust and anger with himself pour out over them. He’s burdened by the weight of his story, his history, and how he is now seen. By the time Bane has broken him and left him in hell, he has literally hit rock bottom.
“Batman could be anybody. That was the point.” –Bruce
Bruce/Batman has to come to understand the depth of his failure of doing life his way. He can’t outrun his demons anymore than he can outrun himself. Every man has looked up at the light with the hope of freedom. His situation can’t be true despair without hope. Hitting bottom means he has reached the end of his self. That sense of independence and need to control everything about him. The way out involves a journey inward. Internal journeying isn’t a matter of thinking one’s way out of something. It’s about getting his identity straight. About escaping the walls he’s learned to live within, because continuing to live in the literal and figurative pit of his despair, he wouldn’t be of any use to anyone. He’d have to risk giving up the masks he carries.
The thing is brokenness can be redeemed. Bruce/Batman, Gordon, Catwoman (like the Joker and Two-Face before her, offers an equal counterpart and reflection to Batman), Tate, and Bane are all looking for a clean slate, for redemption of sorts. They each come to their own moment of crisis, a crossroads, and have a decision to make as far as who they are going to be and how they are going to live. Finding redemption means washing their own wounds and past, giving them up and letting go of them.
“I see the power of belief.” –Alfred
He has to rebuild himself, inside and out. And even as Bruce goes through the process of shedding the lies he’d wrapped himself in and other people’s expectations of him; at the same time, he (re-)discovers who he is and what he was meant to be. It means finding forgiveness, for himself as well as others. In so doing, his wounds become occasions for new visions. It means he may suffer failures and setbacks in his climb, but he has the light of hope and freedom to carry him. It means taking a leap to freedom, becoming as a child, in order to repair the soul.
Also, in his weakness he has a reminder that he can’t do it alone. Eventually he needs the support of others to walk alongside him on the path. In short, sometimes a new man rises from the darkness.
“Maybe it’s time we stopped trying to outsmart the truth and let it have its day.” –Alfred
Dark and heavy, The Dark Knight Rises comes full circle, tying together all of the plot strands coming out of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. Against the landscape of urban terrorism and class warfare, there is a deeply resonant emotional tale of the hero in sunset. It’s not perfect, having to live in the shadow of its predecessor. However, it continues to stretch what a superhero movie is capable of being and is as fitting a conclusion as anyone could expect. Just in time for the entire franchise to be re-booted.
Wowzer – he’s written it!
(But what took him so long? After this much time, I was really expecting a veritable ESSAY; miles long, analysing all TDKR’s pros and cons, and comparing it to a whole slew of other movies!)
Um OK – so you want the franchise rebooted, so soon? Don’t rapid reboots inevitably lead to ever-diminishing returns – artistically if not financially?
Um yeah – and the movie isn’t “perfect”? I should say not!! You’re such a Nolan groupie, Mo! Never mind: I’ll try not to hold that against you..
I notice that you do kind of admit that Selina’s portrayal here was more “generic” than truly feline or totemic – a problem I noticed from the start! Still, she did have something to do..
Other matters: Nolan did seem to be harping on/”reflecting” for added “profundity” – the sort out of a packet! – by including themes from Dickens’ A Tale Of Two Cities, & at least one set-piece scene alluding to it..But all the lefty sites basically said Nolan’s movie had nothing to do with the concerns of Charles
Dickens; or his sympathy with the poor! (Or all that much to do with the 99%!) I notice you don’t here so much as mention the word “revolution”: though Nolan’s script uses it about three times.. The odd thing being, and what so thoroughly disgusted the WSWS, is that what is herein portrayed is a faux revolution!
:/
But YOU didn’t want to go into that! :S
(Well you do mention “class warfare” – I’ll let you off!)
What else was I going to say? Well – seeing as nowadays what most moviemakers seem to do, is to incessantly copy (bits of) other previous movies – it’d be interesting to see if Nolan was “referencing”, visually at least, any of the old Tale Of Two Cities movies, rather than the novel, in his effort! But the trouble for me as critic checking, is that the last time I saw any of those I was a kid, and I don’t have download on demand! But it’d be interesting to check. Wikipedia tells me there were two b&w film versions, in 1935 and 1958.
What else might be mildly interesting to mention? Well: I thought it was – notable – to see how The League Of Shadows makes its – one sees inevitable – reappearance in the conclusion to the trilogy: despite its mysterious absence from the middle movie; notwithstanding the cameo by the Scarecrow who was previously its minion – and here he is again!
(I found it REALLY odd how the Joker – and the gangsters – not so much as *mentioned* the League in TDK – and now suddenly its back again? An obvious case of scriptwriter amnesia!!
I actually would have found it way more amusing – in a kind of cynical way that the “real” Joker might like!
To have had the Ledger Joker make out to be an OVERT, out-and-out anarchist – of a fairly juvenile kind, probably: you know: “Kids: disobey your parents at all times!” And THEN, to ultimately prove to be fairly insincere – at least not nearly as “independent” or LIBERTARIAN (yes how’s that for a word! 
) by turning out to be in the pay of the LoS. (Well who else bought
..him those fancy threads, that he was boasting to the mobsters cost $1000s?!
Yes. To have the Joker as ultimately a rather “sold-out” “artist” – or “counterculture” figure – ultimately owned lock stock and barrel by some kind of illuminati – that would have more greatly entertained ME! (&the odd thing here is, SOME conservative conspiracy theorists would probably like that idea TOO – I’m sounding more like Glenn Beck every second!
)
But anyway, you see: Making Joker in league with the League in movie two, would have freed up movie three for Nolan to do something quite different – not just to do a remake of movie two – which he has!!!
Capiche?!
(Yes, yes: I know the trouble with yours truly – as a wannabe screenwriter or scripter – is that I do tend to have *original ideas/”takes”*: and don’t tend just to copy old movies, or regash something out of old “plot points” out of a variety of a couple-decades-old comic books! And I *do* tend to *strange* notions – such as that *the Joker could be many things
. other than a mere monster: including simply a poseur!* But not a monster. Those who would come up with such a “theory” about him are to be dismissed as crass PHILISTINES. (I know! That would dismiss and condemn most of DC’s output for the past 25 or so years! So be it – my sentiments EXACTLY!)
But then – who would care for the views of a logical, contrarian Lokean critic like me??
Anyway. I’m glad you, Maurice, were able to unearth where the plot points came from: I wouldn’t have been able to! Though I’m familiar with the first two comics – what’s the Earthquake one though? Not the silly Gotham No Man’s Land series?
And so: if you were keeping an ear close to the ground of “geek opinion”: it would interest me to know: now that they had their “big bad”, the Joker – mm yes, always good to feed geeks on moral platitudes :/ – who *did* the majority of them desire as the villain of RISES?
Bane *was* a bit of a bore: largely because he reprised the “terrorist” angle over again..
Anyway: WHY is it, that in these kind of movies, just because its a movie, the antagonist(s) have to be terrorists, or more like Bond villains?! (Another thing that has bothered me for years!)
Weren’t these comics originally Detective Comics? Wasn’t the Batman supposed to be a Sherlock Holmes-style detective? And weren’t the antagonists originally not terrorists or “Bond villains”, nor simply mobsters, though there were a few – but weren’t most of them just regular CRIMINALS, both costumed and non? And Nolan’s take on Selina Kyle as a catburglar was the merest nod to this heritage?? (Just like he heralded he was gonna make the Joker into a bank robber once more – At last! thought I, no more sodding costumed serial killers! But in the event, I don’t think Nolan’s Joker was anybody’s idea of a robber and a blagger; more a performance artist into terrorism! (Which he did morph into somewhat in later, yet well-pre-Miller comics; yet the original Joker was after moolah, man! Not burning it!
And then in the Nolan movie there was all that business of the Joker shooting his accomplices in the head; or otherwise murdering them – sigh! WHY – just because he’s the Joker? Or because he’s a terrorist? Well – if they want to be so realist and cool, the Nolans and Goyer – just go up to them, the next time you see them (!), and ask them: What were you basing this on? Do Al Qaeda, for example, carry on like that? Er no, they’d have to admit. Well why’d you put it in for? Er, to entertain teenage morons! Well, you’re not serious artists, then, are you? Er, no!
See, Maurice? The things modern geeks like just don’t make SENSE!!
(Oh: and to those who would refer me back to comics: I know more about the vintage ones than you realise! When, in the 70s (which were an ace decade compared to today) “gritty” stories started to appear where the Joker DID do in his henchmen: “The Joker’s 5-Way Revenge” being a classic (and by me beloved!) example; they were never pointless and unmotivated, as they are today…
It was always a question of betrayal (usually squealing) and revenge for same!
(I always liked a good bit of revenge, me! But I also liked how *in the old comics, the Batman was such a good guy that he’d put himself out just as much to save criminals and henchmen, as he would to save your normal sheep-like citizen! Which ideal he doesn’t stick to nowadays much!*
American culture is today like the end of ancient Greece and Rome: a decline into barbarism.
I know that a lot of this screed references the previous movie in the series. But I think that most of the reasons for the faults in the third, and the repetition, are to be found in the second. (And in the whole current attitude to be found within pop culture.)
Perhaps some of Maurice’s other online friends would like to join the fray? Or help me out?
I know anyway, and I’ve felt for ages, that the only real way to discuss all these themes will be in a book. Perhaps, in the interim, a blog post or a dedicated thread on a more free-for-all message
board will get it all out of my system, on a more appropriate forum? (Though I wouldn’t count on it!) Perhaps I’ll try again on imdb.com, when I feel more up to it!
Oh: and what I say here is and always has been a critique of the relevant movie – and its sequels/prequels: and modern pop culture in general: never or very rarely of the review or the reviewer!
(Have to say that because a good while back, one of mine host’s friends did make that error! 
)
There’s nothing wrong with Maurice’s review. In fact, I liked greatly some parts of it, or sentiments such as “The way out involves a journey inwards.” (Yes it does: but a lot of that is a totemic idea which should have been explored more thoroughly in the comics!)
No: it is simply today’s culture, full stop, and its “bards”, who and which I find wanting!
Yes and of course if a reviewer *does* choose to do a negative review of a movie like this – people might ask him/her “what do you like then”? and if s/he’s honest, such a reviewer might say “nothing out there right now” – which outlook I surmise is only possible on a “non-mainstream” site! Well maybe we need more of those for the current culture I feel is past redeeming!
Are you out there, Mo? How do you feel about all these things?!
I was Googling around and actually found some sympathy for my concerns today on a couple of mainstream sites! (one of them conservative!) I might post the links later if that’s okay.. Maurice can always take them down if not: one’s the Telegraph, so I doubt he will!
But I was actually looking for something else: namely a decent Wikipedia article/wikia on the Dent Act?There isn’t one; only links to a photo of the in-story press release about it!I suppose it wasn’t described clearly enough in the movie!
Many of the problems I have with these movies are to do w totalitarianism.
Like: the way in which Bats and Jim are so SURE that the way out of their problems at the end of TDK is through *lying propaganda*: ¬ just a little white lie: but by deliberately bigging up someone they know to have ultimately been an insane maniac! What’s the point of THAT? (&it was never in the comics!)
You all DO know that THAT sort of thing – mythmaking about mythologized “real life heroes” is the sort of thing resorted to by the propaganda arms of totalitarian states? Google “Lei Feng”!
You’re already living in a dictatorship and you don’t know it – or the Gothamites are! &Oh YES the “heroes” agonize over their wrongdoing – but don’t do much about it. &if the story arc was really supposed to be redeeming – well.
The Dent Act. Bothered me: though I would need to read the non-existent text to analyse it!
Because the point of it appeared to be railroading criminals (we hope) to jail – not just with “speedy trials” (which we didn’t see,not OF the mobsters: could they have been mass or show trials?)
But: by denying appeals (didn’t they say that?!) and by denying parole to those involved in organized crime.
Well: denying parole is what federal prisons already do..
And as for this bit: “to organised criminals”.. well, at least it’s nice to know that Gotham’s Mayor Garcia has greater priorities than the War on (Some) Drugs! But as usual, the devil is in the definition. They could make a gang of kids in a shed out to be “organised”!
(I wonder if lawyers ever consider these sort of movies??)
And whatever the case, Maurice: it’s not very “redeeming” to deny all your town’s mob guys (usually ethnic) parole and other rights under the law! Even Capone got let out eventually!
And I can’t see it being what the traditional comic book Batman would have wanted! Even as late as the Nineties, in a comic book crossover with Judge Dredd, there Bats’d be, defending democracy – and vigilantism!
– against the crass totalitarianism of the Judge! (Who is probably so horrible because he has no sex appeal! 
)
And this idea that this cop and this Bat could end ALL crime (or even THAT THEY WOULD WANT TO, knowing that going too far along those lines would land up in a police state – no, even that wouldn’t do! A mind-controlled state it would have to be, as fantasised by CIA psychiatrists!)
But our heroes – traditionally – wouldn’t want THAT. Any more than Captain Kirk or any of your regular stock American heroes would! Was it only during the Cold War that your country’s pop culture heroes could extol democracy??
Y’all needed those Communists, to give you something to compete against, didn’t you? Keep you honest. Well don’t worry: Nolan might be right: a new lot of them may be arising to take you all over! But again: I’ve never heard of revolutionaries who would rather burn a city than rule it..
Shows you these moviemakers should do some proper research!
Anyway.. “eradicate all crime”, my rear! IF you get rid of a few bunches of mobsters – or drug kingpins – another lot rise up in their place. If you greatly..
..decrease organised crime, there’s still street crime. And the more poverty there is, the more crime. The only way to tackle it is to a) decrease the profitability (legalise drugs) and b) to tackle the poverty and deprivation at its root.
There was even a comic book out a few years ago: collaboration between Max Allan Collins and a Japanese artist: called something to do w dreams: in which Bats & Gordon – albeit briefly – discuss how they could have done and do more for “Crime Alley” – the poor neighbourhood! Every decent liberal writer knows this! Wonder what M.A.C. thinks of the Nolan movies? “Manipulative, shallow drivel”, I’m hoping!
All Bruce Wayne seems to do here is fund orphanages. But aren’t they a bit passe?! Thought it was all fostering now. (&anyway they now make me think of Jimmy Savile and Cyril Smith – ugh.)
!!
Moving on (can’t leave it on that note!)
There *were* of course, a few things to tantalise in this movie! One is tempted to see it as a war between totalitarianisms. (The “kangaroo courts” presided over by Crane may have been a response to earlier “show trials” by Gotham’s establishment. Of course, Nolan never spells it out! But if you’re going to go all “Mao” on us – why NOT let the underdogs have their fling? It’s a pity about Ledger: because I could imagine him here as the spoof “defense attorney” to Crane’s prosecutor: uttering piles of sarcastic remarks, all of which I – with the help of my god – could write!
)
Never to be!
But would Nolan have wanted any humour in his concluding “heaviosity” – a Woody Allen term!
Yeah. Anyway. Just you wait, Howood: you are calling on forces you do not understand and cannot control! Just as the random violence of mainly the second Nolan Bat-movie called into being the real-life spectre of James Holmes (you can be sure he’d been planning that for a while!);
So shall all your clumsy-ass references, Nolan Team, to “revolution” and such, find strange, inchoate appeal, guided or misguided, in the hearts, minds and unconsciousnesses of not a few of the 99%: and may all act in coincidence and concert for your very fears to come to pass!! SO MOTE IT BE! May all who deserve a bane find one; and may Scarecrow take you all, 1%, Hollywood – &any of its fanboys who disagree with me!!! May my neopagan curse intensify Nolan’s unwitting one!
(If that’s not too melodramatic.)
