These are comments by Nas Who and Mike L on the post “The Dark Knight Rises Is a Pro-Fascist Movie“.
Nas Who said:
“What I was saying boiled down to this: Yes, Gotham City operates under a pro-fascist, authoritarian rule at the start of the film. This is what the lie established and maintained by Gordon and Batman at the end of The Dark Knight led to, but it’s established that both of them are completely uncomfortable with the fascist status quo. Sure, they don’t take matters into their own hands and destroy the status quo, but they aren’t necessarily as ‘for’ it as they were 8 years ago when they made it up.
“Bane arrives and presents Gotham with the opposite of their fascist status quo, but only in his paraphrased Occupy-style speeches. He’s presenting his own fascist and authoritarian rule as if it’s the opposite.
“Ultimately, Batman doesn’t return or fight for the status quo, because his return itself ‘ruins’ the status quo. This is why his first fight isn’t really against Bane and his goons, but against the police force. It’s also why Gordon’s words ultimately inspire what Blake does at the end of the movie. He blatantly points out how their lie – and the authoritarian rule it helped to establish – aren’t worth it because they’ve become shackles on the city, rather than a means of freeing its people.
“In a weird way, Nolan seems to be suggesting that the status quo during the first and second acts of The Dark Knight is far more desirable, because it was police/authority figures against a common enemy, The Joker, whose motivations were clearly rooted in the status quo (he wanted to keep Batman in play so he gave him something big enough to keep fighting against, so he could never go away) while Batman served as a symbol of fear for criminals and hope for the people. That this middleground where people have the option to choose (literally seen in TDK’s ferry scene) is better than one where the police/authorities choose for them (TDKR’s status quo for its first two acts).”
Mike L added:
“Bane’s agenda is that of the Occupy movement as seen by people who don’t know anything about the Occupy movement.”
“I would argue the exact opposite. The entire movie reminded me of this lovely demonstration in San Francisco this past May Day:
“After an Occupy march devolved into the smashing of the windows of 30 small businesses (in a neighborhood where there are ONLY small businesses, it was not the financial district), and a literal assault on a police station, the Occupy protesters made several statements the next day to claim it ‘wasn’t them’ but rather ‘some other group’ who they ‘weren’t involved with.’
“There’s your context: the reality of Bane is not so far off. Groups who ‘aren’t really the people’ are actually waiting in the wings for an excuse to loot and attack police stations once they think they have a shot.
“Block after block of smashed windows (to say nothing of the smashed dreams of small business owners and employees) is no ‘deliberate caricature of the imagined opposition,’ rather it was the reality in the Mission District of San Francisco on April 30th, 2012.
“That is what Bane is: the anarchist taking advantage of the popular rage.
“It’s probably true that the vast majority of the Occupy protesters did not ever want to see a street of small businesses looted and a police station attacked. But their actions enabled the anarchists who DID want to see this kind of destruction. This is what Bane represents, and it’s very real.”
Photo credit: Flickr / Pop Culture Geek