The quotes below are transcribed from a podcast called /FILMCAST.
“Colin writes in:
The film makes a number of allusions to the French Revolution in a event where the common people overthrew the wealthy yet suffered under the hands of their own disorganization. The liberation in the prison in the film is liberation of the Bastille where the peasants and convicts began looting and pillaging from the homes of the rich. Moreover the people’s court of law headed by Cillian Murphy sentenced citizens to death without fair trial similar to the way executions were carried out during the French Rev. Also, similar to Robespierre during his Reign of Terror, Bane was the intellectual giving compelling speeches to the masses while ruling Gotham as a dictator. You (the podcasters) addressed the notion as the 99% and suggested the film might antagonize the rich, however I think the film’s message is that while our economic institution and administrative structures are not perfect, they are preferable to anarchy, terror, and manipulation of the masses by a few, as was the case when the French Rev. resulted in oligarchy and despotism.”
“Well, you can read all those things. You can read the cultural revolution in China. I think what Nolan has said is the political side of things is little more open, because you can view it multiple ways and it’s not as definitive as ‘oh, this is pro-Occupy Wall St.” or against it or anything.”
The reason one "can read all those things" is because they all stem from the same thing. The French Revolution was started by the jacobins, who were largely freemasons (but again, I'm not bashing freemasonry, just illuminated freemasons). I have yet to do research on how Mao Zedong got into power. Wall St. and russian freemasons in the Great East of Peoples of Russia started the soviet revolution.
“David Su writes in:
One thing I wanted to chime in on is the nature of the 99% vs. the 1% theme. At one point, Dave referenced an editorial the purported the film to be in support of the 1% since they seem to be the primary victims of Bane’s uprising. However I think Nolan was making a much different statement on the socio-economic situation facing Gotham and thus America. With Batman gone for roughly 7 years and crime nearly nonexistent due to the harsh regulation imposed by the Dent Act, a new set of problems have emerged in Gotham; a widening wealth gap, growing unemployment and corruption in the financial institutions. Catwoman’s dialog in the ballroom scene reinforces this notion, and I think as an audience we are meant to bring our understanding of what’s going on in reality with things like the Occupy Wall St. movement to the film. As soon as we hear the phrase 1%, it’s safe to assume Nolan is drawing a clear parallel between Gotham’s woes and unfortunate economic truth which have become apparent in America over the last 4 years (well it's been decades or more really). Early in the film, the police discover the body of a young man outside a sewer drain, and we quickly learn through officer Blake that he “aged out” of a boy’s home that is no longer receiving funding from Wayne Enterprises. I believe the boy’s home represents the welfare programs and other social institutions that the 1% refuses to support by defying increases in taxes and corrupt financial practices. As soon as good men like Bruce Wayne stop paying attention to details, the corrupt can run amuck, much as they have in our own under regulated financial system.
The money is not trickling down to the people that need the safety net and the crippled economy is not offering those people an opportunity to make it on their own."
He has some good points, but this last part is typical mainstream misunderstanding. It's not that the financial system is "under regulated," it got that way through cronyism. Not capitalism -- crony capitalism. Regulations are written by corporations to hurt competitors and small businesses. De-regulation took off the brakes only because the FED was their guaranteed parachute. Also the idea of trickle-down is ridiculous, as I'll explain later. But these are 2 big false debates in mainstream media that for some reason people don't think through and do enough research, because they address the symptoms (Keynesianism band-aids) and not the cause of the economic crisis (cronyism).
"Enter Bane. With so many disenfranchised young men as well as unemployed members of the lower class having no where else to turn, Nolan is proposing a worst case scenario, a situation where people would actually turn to an anarchic leader with plans for a violent uprising. In this sense, the film isn’t victimizing the 1%, but warning them that if they don’t let things even out by paying their fair share, members of the 99% can organize this sort of violent revolt, literally engaging in class warfare."
I agree that's the movie is a warning to everyone that the disenfranchised and desperate may turn to a compelling leader, which they have in the past and present. We can list the names of all tyrannical leaders. But I don't agree with saying "1% paying their fair share" would prevent class warfare or solve the economic problem. If what they are saying is to raise taxes, it's the false paradigm that again the mainstream media would like to pit the left vs. the right as left or right stances. It would NOT even begin to scratch the debt or the spending problem. The debt is literally unpayable, it needs to be "forgiven." The FED needs to stop making and popping bubbles. I mean, there are many things that address the symptoms vs. the cause. And if people stop listening to mainstream corporate media, they'd join the people awake and address the causes.
"This interpretation really refrains or possibly conflicts with the final showdown between the police and Bane’s thugs. If you look at Bane’s army as misguided young people with no place to turn, it’s harder to see them as simply evil criminals that deserve an ass kicking from Batman. They may have gotten in over their heads and not realized Bane’s plan involved anything beyond an attack on Wall St. Granted much of the violence in the streets towards the end could’ve involved the released prisoners, but it was still pretty clear that Bane had amassed a large group of followers before taking control of the city. I wished we’d gotten a perspective of one of these young men, not that the film needed another character to track, and see how his allegiance to Bane was reluctant and regretful because it really would’ve added another layer to the whole 99%/1% them. I know there’s not a ton of evidence to support this interpretation, but I thought it was worth sharing.”
“Under David’s interpretation, the movie is not anti-99%, it’s just saying it’s anti-inequality.”
Which is what, a socialist view? Look, you're not going to solve inequality. Again, that's symptoms.
I agree that it's a shame most people are "followers." Sheeple will follow leader who speak well and are convincing, and that's what's interesting with Nolan's Bane. He a brute, but talks like a politician.