moderate spoiler alert! the dark night

page: 1
5

log in

join

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Whilst I enjoyed the introduction of Robin, all that really comes to mind is “mass brainwashing”

As a little black sheep, I understood the indoctrination I was under going and was taken aback by the blantant derision for the 99% of society.

How OWS and the 99% will be the downfall of society and the 1% must stay in power as they are the foundation of the economy and justice.

Batman only seeks to help the 1% , police and orphan children, he initially keeps his no guns policy but catwomen soon changes his mind and heads are shot.
She is a fellon with a long list of murder and theft charges but comforts her in saying that he doesnt believe that is really her and she wouldn’t need to do that if she could start again rich, which she does as Batmans wife.

The ever repeating emphasis on how noble the 1% really are, made me ill, litterally as in I got a headach for hours after this dang movie.

Without the 1% and police in absolute control the 99% of society will instantly degrade into total anarchy and violence.
This is emphasised by only one busload of orphan children and their catholic carers trying to flee the city with Robin.
No others have attempted or are trying to cross the only bridge out of Gotham.
The 99% enjoy, rioting and the lust of kangaroo courts handing down death to the 1% , in preferance over fleeing an imminent attomic bomb.
We see thermite explosions and the hero himself blow up the side of a tall building into a flaming batman logo.

As a little black sheep I understood the indoctrination.

The 1% are our intelectual and moral superiors.
It is their money which gives value to the money in your mattress.
The 99% are only a whisp away from total anarchy.
The only bad rich, the ones that would turn a new energy into a weapon, are not really rich at all, they are the “new rich" previously one of the 99%.
Balance and order are maintained by the 1% controlling the Economy and Justice.
Obey and be Grateful or society will crumble into a sestpool of violence and destruction.


What say you all!




posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by meaguire
 



What say you all!

Not another batman thread..."good grief charlie brown."



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by meaguire
 


I say you're overanalyzing it.

The film wasn't nearly as political as everyone made it out to be.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarkKnight21
reply to post by meaguire
 


I say you're overanalyzing it.

The film wasn't nearly as political as everyone made it out to be.



says batman....


peace lol.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Very good.

I don't know how anyone can say he over analyzed it since that is what happened



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by SoymilkAlaska
 


Lol what can I say, he's been a favorite superhero since childhood. I think a lot of people were expecting this to be a political film, with Batman representing capitalism and the 1% and Bane representing the Occupy movement or whatever, but this movie was not that. Like the other 2 films, Nolan focused more on Bruce Wayne's character development via his physical, mental and spiritual battles. The Dark Knight trilogy explores themes of terrorism and echoes the fears of a post-911 era, but it makes no political arguments left or right.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by DarkKnight21
 


I agree that politics are not relevant. But I would also say that whatever Nolan wanted to do is not relevant either. People overestimate the ego-self of the artists. The collective psyche and its archetypal patterns have much more power over the art. The Muse is in charge.

"The biographies of great artists make it abundantly clear that the creative urge is often so imperious that it battens on their humanity and yokes everything to the service of the work, even at the cost of health and ordinary human happiness. The unborn work in the psyche of the artist is a force of nature that achieves its end either with tyrannical might or with the subtle cunning of nature herself, quite regardless of the personal fate of the man who is its vehicle." -Carl Jung

So having watched all three recently, it strikes me that the trilogy portrays something wider than the modern era. The first one, 'Batman Begins', is about the transition from the age of Aries to Pisces. The second is about the insanity of the dark ages. The third is about the transition from the age of Pisces to the age of Aquarius.

Pisces is two fish...a mutable sign...and midway through the age of Pisces, at around the year 1000, the second fish gained dominance over the first in the sky. That represents the period where Batman is forced underground, and Bain begins to rise. It represents the point where science and rationalism begin to rise and the Christ begins to lose cultural dominace...overshadowed by the thought-systems of the Anti-Christ.

So Batman and Bain are the twin fish...which in the Christian mythos is Christ and Anti-Christ. They are twin brothers. It's the period of the Anti-Christ (the second half of the age) that transitions into Aquarius. The sacred feminine, Rachel Dawes, is strong in the first movie but the partiarchy and exotericism of the second movie (the dark ages) repress (kill) her.

When an archetype is repressed it surfaces elsewhere as a demon...the Catwoman. But the compassion and understanding of the Christ figure, Batman, turns her into her opposite. A form of heiros gamos results. At the same time, the other aspect of the sacred feminine, who seems to be on Batmans side, becomes her opposite and betrays him. When one side of a coin is up, the other is down. You can't flip one side without flipping the other.

The symbol on the neutron bomb is Pisces, and it has to detonate in order for Aquarius to rise. Bain AND Batman have to go. Sort of like how, in the Avengers, Thor AND Loki have to exit together at the end. Unity expresses itself as pairs of opposites.

I doubt that the various artists intended to portray the transition of the ages...it just turns out that way. The archetypes of the collective unconscious are much more powerful than the ego-self.

edit on 29-7-2012 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 07:49 PM
link   
batman sucks....



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueMule
 


Now that is a very interesting and thought-provoking analysis... I would say you are on to something there.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by DarkKnight21
 


Thanks. I like Batman very much and as a student of comparative mythology, it always astounds me how much comics are like a modern mythology for our culture. The same archetypes are in comics as are in mythology and religion...the same patterns and relationships...the same source of inspiration.


“In Mutants and Mystics, Kripal offers a brilliantly insightful account of how comic book heroes have helped their creators and fans alike explore and express a wealth of paranormal experiences ignored by mainstream science. Delving deeply into the work of major figures in the field—from Jack Kirby’s cosmic superhero sagas and Philip K. Dick’s futuristic head-trips to Alan Moore’s sex magic and Whitley Strieber’s communion with visitors—Kripal shows how creators turned to science fiction to convey the reality of the inexplicable and the paranormal they experienced in their lives. Expanded consciousness found its language in the metaphors of sci-fi—incredible powers, unprecedented mutations, time-loops and vast intergalactic intelligences—and the deeper influences of mythology and religion that these in turn drew from; the wildly creative work that followed caught the imaginations of millions. Moving deftly from Cold War science and Fredric Wertham’s anticomics crusade to gnostic revelation and alien abduction, Kripal spins out a hidden history of American culture, rich with mythical themes and shot through with an awareness that there are other realities far beyond our everyday understanding.”


revoltoftheapes.com...

edit on 29-7-2012 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by meaguire
Batman only seeks to help the 1% , police and orphan children,

He also developed a fusion reactor which would have helped everyone but coal, oil, and solar industries; reacted to an attack on the stock exchange that could have wiped out countless middle class investments, pension funds, and the like; and he threw a rope to the League's prisoners.


he initially keeps his no guns policy but catwomen soon changes his mind and heads are shot.

To be fair, little bat-shaped shuriken and tiny flashbangs wouldn't have stopped the armored convoy carrying the nuclear bomb.


She is a fellon with a long list of murder and theft charges but comforts her in saying that he doesnt believe that is really her and she wouldn’t need to do that if she could start again rich, which she does as Batmans wife.

Did he suggest she needed wealth to start over? I don't remember that. Neither she nor Bruce could have been that wealthy, at the end. His assets were sold to cover debts and establish an orphanage, hers were wiped out by the clean start program. I'm sure he had something squirreled away for a rainy day, and she had all those jewels she stole, but the expense of establishing new identities must have been considerable, and we have no idea how much they have left.

I don't remember them getting married, either. They went to a cafe together. Not exactly a surefire sign of matrimony. But that's nitpicking. There's plenty of precedent on Earth 2 for a Batman-Catwoman marriage, after all.


Without the 1% and police in absolute control the 99% of society will instantly degrade into total anarchy and violence. This is emphasised by only one busload of orphan children and their catholic carers trying to flee the city with Robin. No others have attempted or are trying to cross the only bridge out of Gotham.

That's because there are armed police barricading the bridge, and they have been told for months that the nuke will be detonated if anyone crosses. No one but the heroes know that the bomb is on a timer and will explode regardless of their actions.


The 99% enjoy, rioting and the lust of kangaroo courts handing down death to the 1% , in preferance over fleeing an imminent attomic bomb.

The identities of the rioters were never clear, but it's obvious they did not comprise 99% of the entire population. (Neither does "the 99%," for that matter.) Bane's army and the Blackgate escapees were probably the core of the rioters and the ruling quasi-state. No doubt there were some "normal" people among the rioters. But we also saw people holed up in their homes, or meekly lining up for rations. And again, the nuclear threat wasn't imminent, it was contingent upon people trying to escape.


The 1% are our intelectual and moral superiors.

Thou hast said....


It is their money which gives value to the money in your mattress.

Essentially true. Without the capital and markets made possible by the 1% (or any other arbitrary fraction at the top of the wealth scale), there would be fewer goods for you to purchase with your mattress money, and it would be harder for you to do so.


The 99% are only a whisp away from total anarchy.

I think nuclear terrorism, wiping out the police department, infiltrating a terrorist army, freeing and arming an entire prison, and controlling all lines of communication into and out of a city are a bit more than a "whisp." Considering that large American cities cannot even take an unwanted verdict or the closing of an after hours club without devolving into mass riots, I think Gotham comported itself quite well.


The only bad rich, the ones that would turn a new energy into a weapon, are not really rich at all, they are the “new rich" previously one of the 99%.

The League was thousands of years old and had enough resources to establish Talia's Miranda Tate cover, fund the fusion project (I think?), and recruit their army. It was definitely old money, and lots of it. I don't remember whether Dagget was identified as noveau riche; I don't remember it being a plot point at all.

The film does not reflexively villify and scapegoat the wealthy, nor does it kowtow to populist sentiment. Unusual for a major film, and some reviewers were uncomfortable with that.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 06:17 AM
link   
Wait, are you equating all the criminals being set free to the OWS movement?

Whose side are you on again?





top topics
 
5

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum