All of which is to say that Nolan isn’t trying to push a crude, Ayn Rand-esque parable about heroic Gotham capitalists threatened by resentful, parasitic looters. His model, as the movie’s literary references make clear, is “A Tale of Two Cities” rather than “Atlas Shrugged,” which means that he’s trying to simultaneously acknowledge the injustices of the existing regime while suggesting that both the revolutionary and anarchic alternatives would be much, much worse. Across the entire trilogy, what separates Bruce Wayne from his mentors in the League of Shadows isn’t a belief in Gotham’s goodness; it’s a belief that a compromised order can still be worth defending, and that darker things than corruption and inequality will follow from putting that order to the torch. This is a conservative message, but not a triumphalist, chest-thumping, rah-rah-capitalism one: It reflects a “quiet toryism” (to borrow from John Podhoretz’s review) rather than a noisy Americanism, and it owes much more to Edmund Burke than to Sean Hannity.

Originally posted by krossfyter
article here

All of which is to say that Nolan isn’t trying to push a crude, Ayn Rand-esque parable about heroic Gotham capitalists threatened by resentful, parasitic looters. His model, as the movie’s literary references make clear, is “A Tale of Two Cities” rather than “Atlas Shrugged,” which means that he’s trying to simultaneously acknowledge the injustices of the existing regime while suggesting that both the revolutionary and anarchic alternatives would be much, much worse. Across the entire trilogy, what separates Bruce Wayne from his mentors in the League of Shadows isn’t a belief in Gotham’s goodness; it’s a belief that a compromised order can still be worth defending, and that darker things than corruption and inequality will follow from putting that order to the torch. This is a conservative message, but not a triumphalist, chest-thumping, rah-rah-capitalism one: It reflects a “quiet toryism” (to borrow from John Podhoretz’s review) rather than a noisy Americanism, and it owes much more to Edmund Burke than to Sean Hannity.

What sayeth you all? Do you think its right wing propaganda? Or is it just people reading to much into it and using it for an agenda? IE....a rorschach's inkblots? just thought i would share this thought/article with you all, perhaps you all here may be interested.


mods please close if a thread is on this subject.

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

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

"I assure you there is absolutely no connection between Bane, the Batman villain, and Bain Capital," he says. "Chuck Dixon, who created Bane, is one of the most prominent conservatives in comics, so I doubt he'd created this thinly veiled antagonist to draw attention to Mitt Romney—20 years ago!"

Indeed, Dixon created Bane back in 1993, and the comic-book writer openly proclaims that his politics are hardly liberal.

"Graham and I are both staunch conservatives, so from our angle there is no liberal agenda," Dixon told syndicated radio program Schnitt Show, name-checking Graham Nolan, the artist who cocreated Bane with him.

Dixon also went on to shoot down theories that Bane is being used as a political mouthpiece in Dark Knight Rises, telling ComicBook.com, "The idea that there's some kind of liberal agenda behind the use of Bane in the new movie is silly," adding that he and his cohort are "as far from left-wing mouthpieces as you are likely to find in comics.

"I do think there is political commentary in Christopher Nolan's movies, particularly in The Dark Knight," says ComicsAlliance.com's Chris Sims, who jokingly admits to being a self-described Batmanologist. "And there's a lot of political commentary in Batman as a whole—he's a profoundly rich man who essentially pits himself against criminals."