Originally Posted by chator
If Joker was the personification of the anarchist in The Dark Knight, then Bane is the personification of the revolutionary. Both are terrorists, however, Joker has no end goal in sight and just loves chaos for chaos sake, loves the disruption of law and order. Bane, as revolutionary, replaces one form of oppression (elected government, capitalist oppression) with another (rule by him and his unelected army), in the name of the people. You could say Bane and his army symbolize Communists. In this world, Batman is super-cop unfunded by tax payers and therefore able to bend the rules, who acts to restore law and order when the police of Gotham are outmatched. Batman, you could say, just supports the status quo, or more specifically, good cops (Jim Gordon) and good politicians (Harvey Dent).
Although, I love Christopher Nolan's Batman films, I can't say I agree with his politics, or at least, the politics he injects into his films. Does anyone here disagree with this assessment?
The "we cannot tell the people the truth" ending of Dark Knight was already slightly authoritarian so it is hardly surprising that the sequel depicts left-wingers as violent villains without an actual plan. Furthermore the author of the Dark Knight comic, Frank Miller, is a pretty crazy right-winger
and the idea of a rich guy beating up gangsters at night while sleeping during the day, when he could actually make a difference as CEO of his megacompany, is hardly a progressive setup to begin with.
"Batman is unable to see that the subjective crime he fights on a nightly basis is the direct manifestation of the objective crime he perpetrates on a daily basis."
So I basically agree yet it is not a personal but a structural problem. Nolan is not a reactionary fellow, he simply revealed the truth of Batman.