My Defense of The Prequels

   This is a collection of my thoughts on The Prequels, of Star Wars. That is to say Episode 1 The Phantom Menace, Episode 2 Attack of the Clones, and Episode 3 Revenge of the Sith. Perhaps I'm the only one in the world who likes them, whatever. I mean, I don't think they're the greatest of the Star Wars films, but I find the major aspects of them (the art, Palpatines' politics, Anakin's journey towards the dark side intertwining with the government's journey toward the dark side) fascinating, moving, entertaining, and fitting, because it is straight from the creator, George Lucas. I think the stories work. I think the art works.
   As of this writing, I've seen the Episode 7 The Force Awakens twice, but I may or may not write about it yet here in this post. But as always and at any rate, SPOILER WARNING.
   The whole of Star Wars has personal meaning to everyone, and it's totally subjective. People may say Star Wars is about this and that, or it SHOULD be about this and that, that the Prequels weren't about this and that. Well so, this is my opinion.
   People say Star Wars is about the hero's journey, about Luke. Well, yes and no. I mean, yeah for ANH, but now it's much bigger than that. The Star Wars series is about the Skywalker family and how they fit with the Republic/Empire. It's both intimate (about family) and big (about society). I think it's kind of that simple. It's how all these things relate, as the Force relates to everything, surrounds, binds the galaxy together. It's operatic, it's mythic. Also, it is melodramatic. It has always been. It's pulp.
  The Galactic Republic, probably most exemplified by the look of Naboo and Coruscant, is SUPPOSED TO BE glossy, grand, not dirty, rich, etc. It's the height of society. I have like 15 "art of" and "making of" Star Wars books I've read cover to cover, and the concept design is thought out and fitting for the SW universe. Naboo is decorative like art nouveau and classic Greco-Roman, as in contrast, the Empire is cold and sterile, like the inside of a computer. After the Senate and Jedis are crushed and the Emperor takes over, the world goes to shit. Infrastructure goes to shit, things become rusty and dirty. After a war, people salvage, people make-do. The Rebel Alliance are scappers, cobbling together old parts to make their vehicles, because they are not the Empire with money. When there is a totalitarian regime, the lower and middle classes are neglected, competition and entrepreneurship is squashed. You just get what the government allows you to have. You barter, salvage, smuggle, run a black market, as Han does.
   Little Anakin used to be a good innocent boy, saying "Yippees" as someone from the '50's might, like Lucas, or someone from a Norman Rockwell painting, as Lucas and Spielberg both have Rockwell collections. And it's so interesting to see this kid become the most evil mofo of the universe, Darth Vader. So, Jake Lloyd wasn't the greatest actor. Neither was Mark Hamill. And certainly many of the Imperial officers in the Classic Trilogy (ANH, ESB, ROTJ). But, Lloyd did have some great moments of anger, at the Jedi Temple, and this was probably key in him getting the part. I think his character attributes were great -- a kid piloting a dangerous pod racer (showing Jedi reflexes), a generous being wanting to help strangers and a kid in love (innocence), and someone who can fix anything mechanical (but can't fix life and death of his loved ones, and also becomes mechanical himself). His life is turned upside down by leaving his mother to go with the Jedi. Perhaps it's one the reasons he hates the Jedi later. They make him lose attachments.
   Hayden Christensen, like Mark Hamill, I think looked older than the age they actually play. From complaining about not getting to go to Tosche Station, or complaining about being held back by Obi-Wan and the Jedis, they are both impetulant brats (like father, like son) that probably should look younger, however the actors probably needed to bridge the span from teen to adult. Christensen's Anakin comes across strong, and creepy, to Padme because the Jedi's don't get out much. They are celibate monks. And he's a teenager with emotional problems, seduced by power. I have more of a problem with Natalie Portman's acting, as she only plays being weirded out, one note, but her character needs to have a glimmer of interest even before her love confession at the top of the Geonosis gladiator arena scene.
   The greatest thing about the Prequels is the political intrigue. It's the aspect most hated by most, but their loss. It's the story that mirrors and entwines the Skywalker's. Senator Palpatine plays both sides (multiple sides) of the trade conflict to start a crisis to create a situation where he could move in as Supreme Chancellor, and then Emperor. Anakin would be Palpatines' muscle in the end. Anakin's drive for power for control stems from the things he couldn't control in life (his mom's plight, vision of Padme's death, how the Jedi's don't really like him). And so, Palpatine's story of the Sith Lord Darth Plagueis and the knowledge to "cheat death" to peak Anakin's interest is probably one of the best scenes in the series. Ian McDiarmid should've gotten some sort of Academy Award. After Anakin becomes Darth Vader and terrorizes the galaxy, HE is the one to kill the Emperor and find redemption. It's an amazing arc.
   Other aspects that I love about the Prequels were the lightsaber fights of Jedi's and Sith in their prime, Darth Maul, the podrace, the Clone Wars, the brotherly feud between Anakin and Obi-Wan also mirroring the Jedi and Sith point of views, how the Clone Army story-wise and visually becomes the Imperial Stormtroopers, the portrayal of democracy dissolving into a dictatorship by imperialism, militarism. If you know anything about history (kings in general, Napolean, Hitler, USA, etc.), it's the history of our world told over again and again. War motivating a fascist security police state. Bureacracy and corruption motivating calls for more executive power. This is both universal, and personal. It's Anakin's story. It's the Galactic Republic/Empire's story. I think it's genius.
   Jar Jar Binks was innocence (and slapstick), but sometimes "too much." But so is C3PO, a character I can't stand. There is "cheese" to be found in the Classic Trilogy -- the "you rebel scrum" lines, Chewie's cowardice of the dianoga, the antics as they all run around the Death Star, the Ewoks hijinks. A lot of it is campy. It's fun. The Battle of Naboo had "accidental" victories because it was still a innocent time. The Clone Wars is where the Civil War starts to get serious. Well, as serious as SW can be. By ROTJ, things got the most dark, more was at stake; it came to a head for the Skywalkers. The series had to have a progression.
   Lucas' world of Star Wars, his visual choices, is a certain aesthetic. His choices are appealing and popular. I don't like Star Trek aliens; I like Star Wars aliens. Many concept artists can present designs in front of Lucas, but he is the one calling the shots. Joe Johnston and Ralph McQuarrie, Doug Chiang, Terryl Whitlach, Iain McCaig, and Ryan Church worked on many other films, but I'm not crazy about any of their other designs, they weren't as memorable as the Star Wars films. Disney had an eye for design and how it appeals to the majority of audiences as well, and had his artists almost make a science out of it, using proportions and style. For the lack of a better word or explanation, it was an aesthetic. The character designs of these greats, Lucas and Disney, sell mechandise. They are appealing to the masses. I can't say any designs of Don Bluth or Dreamworks appeal to me. I don't have a desire to purchase their toys, if they had any.
  I should probably write another separate post of my thoughts on Episode 7 The Force Awakens, which is mostly positive, but briefly my thoughts on the designs were kinda...meh. The orangey-ET Maz was ugly with small eyes and thin lips. The tentacle ball was ugly and stupid, like something from JJ's Star Trek movies. The stormtroopers looked like cheetahs. Kylo Ren was a bit racist, looking like Omar Sharif in Lawrence of Arabia. The Supreme Leader Snoke looked like ass. Captain Phasma belongs with the cylons. However, BB-8's design was genius. Rey's speeder was great simplcity. Jakku the junk planet was awesome.

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus DECON PART 1

The first time I saw Parnassus, I think I had mixed feelings. It was an awesome adventure, felt it was layered and meaningful, but also confusing. I wasn’t sure I understood the plot entirely. I’ve read and listened to reviews and podcasts floundering about as well, trying to make sense of it, but always talking around it, never about what exactly is going on and what is seen. As I researched more into esoteric and occult subjects and got the blu-ray and listened to Terry Gilliam’s commentary a few times, I’ve seen the movie around 5 times now. I think TG is a genius, always have. Movie-wise, dialog wise and scriptwriting wise, it’s a little rough on the edges because characters sometimes flatly state their intentions and repeat information a lot, but really I wouldn‘t have known because the accents, mumbling, and overlapping lines make it difficult to understand what’s going on, so watching it with subtitles was extremely helpful. But as far as the ideas and potential of the film - brilliant, amazing, awesome, enlightening.

Jumping right into some analysis, all the imagery in the Imaginarium has meaning. It’s a reflection of the imaginations and thoughts of the people who go inside that mirror on the stage. In the beginning, the drunk trudges through bottles. I think the jellyfish and space is like an underwater feeling of being drunk. When the boy enters, it’s all toys, candy things, and air-inflated things for the video-game playing kid to blow up. The shoppers (the tall one is Brienne of Tarth , btw) dream of jewelry and baubles, etc. As the movie goes on, more and more people enter the mirror, aka the Dr.’s mind (not sure how) who polices it, and so there are a mixture of people’s imagery competing for attention, as well as the competing Mr. Nick, a type of devil character. The imagery represents the temptations, the distractions, the decadence, and they are respectively dazzled, lured like a fish. It is unless they drop it all, sacrifice worldly things, choose the Dr.’s long hard road path, they'll come out an enlightened changed person. It’s about reclaiming spirituality in a time of ignorance, hence the odd traveling wagon show juxtaposed near modern settings.

TG’s commentary explains that Dr. P came from a monastery of ancient jewish/tibetan monks (who say “om vei“), and believe their role is to tell the story to define the world. The tree stump Dr. P sits on is the Tree of Life that was cut down, and the monks feel, quite arrogantly, that they replace its role - they are the lifeblood of the world and their story is the only story. Mr. Nick enters, proves them wrong by shutting their mouths, but Dr. P supposes someone else in the world is telling a story. So TG states his feelings on religion - all the Christians and Jews, etc. have got it wrong. It’s ALL of our stories. I believe there is a truth, an enlightenment, to be found in all things; the ancients knew it, but it was broken apart long ago. And also, it’s an ancient idea that we manifest events and things, past, present, future, that we are all part of a one-consciousness. The story of Dr. P is really a story of the lost and found-ness of the ancient mystery schools, i.e. pre-religion. And he is trying to tell us again, as Anton says in that mystical phrase, "for those with eyes to see and ears to hear."

The Wagon: The wagon is loaded with symbols, from ancient Egyptian, Greek, Buddhist, etc. The illuminated great all-seeing eye in pyramid, twin pillars, Anton dressed as Mercury, etc. Dr.P, in various Asian and exotic garb, has acquired all this through his immortal years, and it’s just so dense, it’s indecipherable, and yet maybe that's the point. This is antiquated spiritual imagery that most people are ignorant of and do not care. Dr. P and friends have a very hard time gaining an audience in the modern world that worships consumerism. Later, Tony, Heath Ledger’s character, a smoothtalker chameleon that adapts to situations, comes in and changes up the design of the stage, to modernize it, and it does the trick. And the new stage will have other symbols. More on that later.

The Deal: Mr. Nick and Dr. P make various gambles to spice up life, TG explains. In Dr. P’s ancient book, he explains to his daughter Valentina that Mr. Nick wagers that it is fear that runs the world and how to control it (Mr. Nick portrayed amongst priests, very telling of what TG says about the rise of religion). Mr. Nick believes in the “necessities of danger, fear and the fabled bliss of ignorance.” However, according to TG, Dr. P says it’s about joy, “the power of the imagination to transform and illuminate our lives.” First to 12 disciples wins, Dr. P wins immortality. BTW, Anton, I think, is an extension of Dr. P, for Andrew Garfield plays everything in a fun and playful way. Mr. Nick, TG explains, isn’t really the devil, he’s somewhat below that, some second-rate figure. The two immortals run these battles with mankind, they gamble because it’s interesting to them, or else things get boring. Percy is like Jiminy Cricket, the conscience. And, I don’t think Dr. P, the protagonist, is entirely that good of a person actually, for he wagers lives for selfish reasons. Evil Mr. Nick even seems to have a heart near the end, offering to gamble again so Dr. P can get his daughter back. These main story elements about what pushes and pulls mankind through the ages, and which school of thought governs us, saves us or destroys us, is probably the main interesting and powerful thing about the movie

 Well, that’s just part of my first page of my 5 pages of notes. I’ll split this up into several posts.

THE FILMS OF CHRISTOPHER NOLAN part 2

The Dark Knight Rises continued.

[spoilers]

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.

THE FILMS OF CHRISTOPHER NOLAN part 1

[SPOILERS below]

BATMAN BEGINS
The main antagonist in this movie is Ra’s Al Ghul and the League of Shadows. Who are they and what do they want?

PURPOSE

“The League of Shadows has been a check against human corruption for thousands of years. We sacked Rome, loaded trade ships with plague rats, burned London to the ground.  Every time a civilization reaches the pinnacle of its decadence, we return to restore the balance.” - Ducard/Ghul 

“Gotham’s time has come. Like Constantinople or Rome before it…the city has become a breeding ground for suffering and injustice. It is beyond saving and must be allowed to die. This is the most important function of the League of Shadows. It is one we’ve performed for centuries.” -Ra’s Al Ghul

“You’re going to destroy millions of lives.” - Wayne

“No. Billions of lives. Gotham is just the beginning. The world will watch in terror as the greatest city falls. Anarchy and chaos will spread…mankind will ravage itself, the species will be culled and the balance of nature restored. The planet will be saved for all species.” -Ducard/Ghul

“Gotham is helpless without you. That’s why I’m here.” -Ducard/Ghul

“To kill me?” - Wayne

“To bring you back to us, Bruce. The world will need great men like you-” -Ducard/Ghul

“To take power.” - Wayne

“This is not about power…this is about saving the planet before man destroys it with his greed, with his pollution, with his weaponry…” -Ducard/Ghul

At first it sounds like TLOS are anarchists, but I'm not so sure about that. They still use "government," a form of fascism, which is more clear in The Dark Knight Rises. But I think TLOS has a lot of aspects of a secret society, because it's a bunch of guys with an agenda, hidden in the mountains, being mystical and educated, and infiltrating society by coopting and pretending to be a part of it.

The character of Ra's Al Ghul was created in the '70's, a time where several historians, investigators, politicians, military men, and whistleblowers have talked about plots to take over the world, or the "new world order," although definitely not the first nor last.  I wrote about George Lucas, having made Star Wars in the '70's, talking about the NWO. I believe this theme is a key part in why these movies are successful and resonate with audiences, in addition to of course the film craft.

Like TLOS, secret societies tend to favor harmony and balance of the environment over the value of human life, as seen in their dark occult and pagan practices like in the Thule and Tooley societies influencing the Nazis (i.e. the expedition to the Himalayas, similar to the place where Bruce Wayne finds TLOS) and the Fabian and Theosophical societies influencing the Labor Party. Many are influenced by mystics, having traveled to the east and brought back mystical knowledge and eastern cultural views.

Secret societies meet and share the knowledge of the world; discuss how things have gone in the past, and where things should be in the future. They consist of the most influential people in society and thus arrogantly believe they know what's best for the rest of us. Eugenics was actually sort of popular a hundred years ago. They talked of culling the population. Basically a forced Darwinism. If you can't justify your existence, you're useless and deserve to die. Thankfully, not all "globalists" see eye to eye on ways and means (Japanese assassins are something interesting; talked about as vigilantes of sorts against the NWO globalists). But call them what you will. The Jacobins (Freemasons) and the French Revolution, Thule Society and the Nazis, the Illuminati in various coopted forms such as the Freemasons and the US, and of course the Bilderberger Group and the world. At the height of a corrupt civilization, they just go and crash the party, but the cost is usually human lives. The stakes are the absolute highest; which is why it makes for good drama.

INFILTRATION
“You are defending a city so corrupt we have infiltrated every level of its infrastructure.” -Ducard/Ghul
“When a forest grows too wild, a purging fire is inevitable and natural. Tomorrow the world will watch in horror as its greatest city destroys itself.  The movement back to harmony will be unstoppable this time…Over the ages, our weapons have grown more sophisticated. With Gotham, we tried a new one: Economics. But we underestimated certain of Gotham’s citizens…such as your parents. Gunned down by one of the very people they were trying to help. Create enough hunger and everyone becomes a criminal. Their deaths galvanized the city into saving itself…and Gotham has limped on ever since. We are back to finish the job…” -Ducard/Ghul

So, TLOS isn't solely "shoot-em-up" destructive. Ducard/Ghul mentions they've used economics. If TLOS saw the charitable Waynes as in their way, TLOS must have been creating the poor and desperate to destroy Gotham. How? My guess, debt, taxes and bailouts transfer wealth, outsourced jobs, restrict growth, etc. (here's a great recent Bill Moyer's show). Create poverty, and when people are desperate, they turn on each other (which is why real modern day protests around the world were predictable. 1,2,3). They’ve manipulated the economic system, creating classes, then class warfare ensues, which is TDKR. So, TLOS attacks from both fronts; pressure from above and below. We eat each other up. The Wayne's tried to voluntarily spread their wealth, almost bankrupted them in the process, but it inspired the city to follow good example.

In the Batman Begins script, Ducard says, “When Gotham falls, the other cities will follow in short order.”

The global domino effect of protests was predictable. We are all interconnected [1,2,3,4]. What is the establishment's solution to protests? Martial law. Which is why martial law has already been set up, ready to go.

THE DARK KNIGHT RISES
Jonathan Nolan says the The Dark Knight Rises story was conceived before "Occupy," and was actually influenced by Charles Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities. I haven't read it, but the class-warfare divide-n-conquer method plays itself throughout history, so its MO is predictable if you learn the stages. Nolan could be tapping into the cyclical nature of these stages civilizations go through. America today has similarities to the economic collapse of Weimar Germany before fascism came in.


Christopher Nolan declines to say if he’s right or left wing, but says “the films genuinely aren’t intended to be political,” and “I love when people get interested in the politics of it, when they see something in it that moves them in some way. But I’m not being disingenuous when I say that we write from a place of ‘What’s the worst thing our villain Bane can do? What are we most afraid of?’ He’s going to come in and turn our world upside down. That has happened to other societies throughout history, many times, so why not here? Why not Gotham? We want something that moves people and gets under the skin.”

C'mon, Nolan. The whole movie was basically a modern day political drama -- there were hardly any superheroes in it. At any rate, hey, it's my blog. Having said that, I feel it's good to view things in a historical context -- these are not necessarily ever left or right issues, in TDKR movie or real world. There isn't any reason to pigeonhole into either, as mainstream media does, because this is just the ways things go.

I think what Nolan is saying, is that this movie brings up a lot of issues, and it does so epicly. It seems complex, but as a whole, straight forward. It has you think about them and recognize them in their various guises and say, "Y'know, I would hate for America to turn out like that Gotham City police state. It was brutal." There are historical precedents and patterns, the rise and fall of the great republic civilizations, I follow in it, but there’s not a one-to-one correlation here in TDKR, and that makes it so interesting to me. It's like someone saying they want to make a book/movie about buddhism and called it Fight Club. I say that's great art.

The trailers may make it seem like Bane is an anarchist and his army resembles the “Occupy” movements, beating up the rich 1-percenters. He says he's giving the city back to the people, but that's a politician's rhetoric. You see, the way TLOS controls the city is fascist, statist. How?

The movie starts off with the Dent act, a sort of USAPATRIOT act. Put into law, based on a lie, it seems to create peace. But is it really? How big did the prison population get? But this is the thing that constitutionalists warn about -- even if you think you’re current leadership is wonderfully perfect and has good-intentions, the successor may not be. Once overreaching laws become legal, it’s hard to reverse. Damn near impossible without a revolution. So, who’s the next guy in charge? Bane and TLOS.

Well, it looks like Occupy protestors, you say. It sounds like Occupy rhetoric. But it is fascism. It's control by fear. The whole city is corralled to control it better. The fear that any citizen has the detonator (a lie), that everyone’s a suspect, makes everyone complicit in allowing more security, welcoming this goddamn martial law police state. There’s no due process by Crane/Scarecrow -- he’s the judge, jury and executioner. It’s certainly not democracy. Not anarchy. We don't want poor old Com. Gordon tried under the same justice system. We don't America to be like that, but it's heading that way [1,2,3,4,5]. The government even complies to lock Gotham down. There’s a great scene on the bridge where Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s character challenges the cops to let the kids on the bus through, but the cops are establishment stooges and fire on him. There are watchtowers like they have today. It perfectly represents when police and military blindly obeys their orders because they don’t know what’s really going on. However, there are a growing number who will disobey, as Com. Gordon rallies people who don't buy into the lie (the security theater on citizens), and actually protect the citizens from tyranny, like the valiant knights are supposed to. And then there are people who just don’t act, cowards like Mathew Modine’s character, so they are just as complicit in allowing tyranny in.

Bane's stock market crime scene was just a literal stealing of wealth, I suppose, whereas the real world Wall St. crime was more subtle [1,2,3,4,5]. Also, TLOS leader Talia al Ghul was a rich 1-percenter. So the TLOS had money. If the Occupy movements coopt anything from this movie, then they clearly didn’t understand the movie.

So, ultimately, my take is that it's a secret society coopting an impressionable movement (isn't that always the case?). And it is dangerous and brutal when the majority of people don't get it.

So, is forced redistribution of wealth the answer to a failed civilization, like Gotham? Stealing from the rich? Hey, the corrupt rich should of course be punished, but all people, indiscriminately? Or is the charitable rich an answer? Like the Wayne family. Allowing liberty and freedom to decide. Ralph Nader talks about trying to convince the rich to put their money where their mouth is. It seems like Nolan likes this idea. In Inception, the goal is to change the mind of the heir to one of the largest energy monopolies and break up his empire. And speaking of energy, The Prestige brings up the rivalry between Edison and Tesla, said to have made free energy. TDKR has a free energy device. I can't wait for Nolan's next.

[updated 7-24-12] This issue of surveillance is brought up in The Dark Knight as Batman takes Lucius Fox's sonar technology and expands it. Our hero is desperate, but fallible. Indeed it is the older wiser figure, Fox, saying that this is wrong and ultimately shuts it all down. It is a dilemma, but it does not become normalcy. In real life, the NSA listens to everything, and there are many opposed to this. [1,2,3,4,5,6]

Also, all Batman's gadgetry, especially ones made with military contracts, of course seem so wonderful and useful -- in the right hands. But in the wrong hands, uh, bad. Fox's whole consolidation of military projects in TDKR gets stolen right from under them, literally, by Bane. The energy core gets stolen by Bane. In BB, TLOS steals Wayne's water vaporizer machine. What's with Lucius Fox doing all these military projects and he lets it all get stolen? Technology being both useful and lethal is explored well, and I guess, I'll leave it at that.

There are a few bad apples, and they even can corrupt true white knights like Dent, but the majority of us are good noble people, as the two ferries in TDK proved when they didn't blow each other up. I think only one ferry voted, democracy didn't work (yes democracy is a fallacy), so good noble spirit prevailed. Like a herd mentality, the majority have their heads up the asses of the establishment status quo controlled by the elites. The majority can get to the point where it can be wrong, and the ones that are heroes may seem like rebels to establishment, like Harry Potter and his school and Luke Skywalker and the Empire, for they stand up for goodness and what's right. Blake/Robin literally throws away his badge after his standoff with the stupid cops blocking the bridge. Batman needs to be outside the system and be like the American patriots who rebelled against their British rulers. Our heroes stand for truth, basic human rights, and IMO common sense, regardless of a badge or not. Because the TSA has a uniform, does not make what they do right. Because cops at Occupy are in riot gear and have mace, does not make what they do right. Because we have such ingrained paradigms, the controversy over whether Batman is a good guy or criminal rebel will continue.