The Dark Knight: Film, Society, Politics, and Tragedy


Everything is political. The movies we watch, the songs we listen to, the books we read - all are loaded with political messaging intended to make us feel a certain way about our society. Superhero films are very political because they get straight to the heart of everything we want: safety, security, love, and prosperity. We never have any or all of these in the way we want or in the quantity we desire. It is tempting to blame it on the imperfections of our world and the powerlessness of ordinary people to make it better. The attraction of a hero to rush in, deliver us from our fears and restore our hope is intoxicating, especially in the difficult times many of us are facing these days; times which many Americans had grown up unaccustomed to. 

Predictably, politics followed hard on the heels of the release of Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight Rises. So too, did tragedy. A gunman in Colorado took his politics to a crowded theater and massacred innocent people, many of them teenagers and young adults. Before that, nationally syndicated talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh, was already telling his millions of listeners what he believed was the political messaging of the film. Then, the Colorado massacre gave new ammunition to nation's on-going debate over gun control. 

A political animal by nature, my mind eagerly absorbed the political messages that came to me last Saturday afternoon when I caught a matinee showing of The Dark Knight Rises. Gotham City had enjoyed eight years of unprecedented safety and security because of a controversial law (inspired by the memory of District Attorney Harvey Dent) that had made it easier to jail criminals, infringing to some degree on the ordinary rights of the accused. The superhero, Batman, was in retirement all this time. He felt society no longer needed him. The system took care of its self, at last.


Yet, out this calm, a storm gathered. Gotham's criminal underworld gradually came under the control of a mercenary/villain known as Bane (who happens to have a Darth Vader-like dependency on a breathing device that gives him steady doses of a substance that relieves chronic pain from severe, past injuries).  

Bane's mission was to gather an army of followers and an arsenal of mega-ton explosives to destroy the city's entrances and exits; seal it off from the rest of the country; paralyze and control it through fear of nuclear holocaust if the people disobeyed him; open up the jails and "liberate" the people from the chains of the few, rich people who (Bane claimed) lived off the backs of the poor and oppressed; redistribute the wealth by allowing the people to loot the property of the rich, at will; invite the masses to participate in his regime of terror by setting up and executing their own trials and punishments of anyone they have a problem with. 

Does any of this sound familiar? It should. It comes straight out of the playbook of the 20th century's various Communist revolutionaries. As if this wasn't enough to make the point, Christopher Nolan has Catwoman (Ann Hathaway) roam among Gotham's ruins as a modern-day Robin Hood, stealing from the rich, taking her cut, and tossing the remaining spoils to the needy. Is she a villain? Not in the eyes of Che Guevara.

In the film, Bane accomplishes all the above and it is clear to everyone that the system can not defeat this foe, only Batman can. Bruce Wayne has to tough out the aches and pains from all the years of punishment his body has taken from fighting bad guys, do some more push-ups, and dust off the old Batman costume. This sounds like a very simple, straight-forward formula for a superhero story, doesn't it? In fact, there's a lot more texture to it than that, but this observer does not want to give away any more plot spoilers than is necessary to make the point that this film is very political.


The Dark Knight Rises is so political that even before its release, Rush Limbaugh ranted about it to his listeners over the airwaves. He viewed Nolan's choice of villain (Bane) as an attempt to blacken the image of presidential candidate Mitt Romney in an election year. In discussing the film's impending release, Mr. Limbaugh said moviegoers are, "going to hear [Bane]in the movie, and they are going to associate [Bain]." Bain Capital was a company Mitt Romney had once been C.E.O of. Mr. Limbaugh complained, "The movie has been in the works for a long time, the release date's been known, summer 2012 for a long time. Do you think that it is accidental, that the name of the really vicious, fire-breathing, four-eyed, whatever-it-is villain in this movie is named Bane?" Apparently, Mr. Limbaugh does not see an innocent coincidence.


Ironically, Bane's desire to bring down the rich capitalists and give their money back to "we the people" bares closer relation to the various "occupy" movements of the last year than it does to the values and deeds of Mitt Romney. Indeed, one scene shows Bane "occupying" Gotham City's stock exchange with his thugs, terrorizing the brokers, and sending the market into a tail-spin. One cowering broker tells Bane, "This is a stock exchange. There's no money to steal here" to which Bane asks "than why are you people here?" We can just imagine the followers of "the ninety-nine percent" give out a raucus cheer as Bane proceeds to toss the wimpy broker several feet across the room. Mitt Romney? Bain Capital? Hardly.


In fact, even Mr. Limbaugh's claim of a deliberate word association between "Bane" and "Bain" in the 2012 election is not plausible considering how long the script and film were in production. Before the outcome of the Republican primary contest this last spring, no one knew Mitt Romney would still be a presidential candidate come November. Furthermore, Bane had been a character in the Batman universe for many years. A version of him appeared in the 1997 film Batman and Robin. No one at that time had any clue Mitt Romney would some day have a shot at the presidency. But such political posturing from one of the nation's leading political pundits suggest the potential for politics to be read into any film that gets released in 2012.




Nevertheless, Rush Limbaugh's politics is harmless compared to the politics of James Holmes, who shot up a movie theater during a midnight showing of The Dark Knight Rises in Aurora, Colorado, on July 20th. Twelve people were killed and fifty-eight wounded. The full motive is still unclear, but the fact that Holmes dressed himself in a disguise; told police that he was "The Joker"; executed a well-planned massacre using several types of guns and screened with tear gas; booby-trapped his apartment with trip wire and explosives; all suggests he was acting out a punishment on society in a way inspired by the Batman universe. The fact that his guns and 7,000 rounds of ammunition were purchased legally, has given new fuel to those who advocate a tightening of gun control laws.


Was it the politics of The Dark Knight Rises that led to the tragedy in Colorado? Was it the availability of a vast array of legal weapons? Was it the result of a member of society conditioned by violent entertainment acting out his frustrations in a way inspired by that same entertainment? This observer will not play politics by attempting to answer these questions for you. The proper conveyance of this tragedy's magnitude can not be done if it is shrouded in politics.




Jason A.