Sunday, September 29, 2013

The Dark Knight Rises and Forestalls Revolution


It’s hard not to miss the theme of class warfare in The Dark Knight Rises, the third of Christopher Nolan’s masterful trilogy bringing Batman back to the silver screen, but what does the movie really say about it? When I watched the film again recently on DVD, there was more there and it was more nuanced than I remembered.

On a first viewing, the movie seemed to merely have a thin subtext along the lines of Occupy Wall Street: Isn’t it unfair how some have so much while others have so little?
 
When the villain Bane raids the Gotham Stock Exchange, a stock broker outside is distraught, claiming, “It’s not our money, it’s everybody’s,” a skeptical police officer nearby says, “Really? Mine’s in my mattress.” This and several dialogue exchanges highlight the difference between those who make their money on Wall Street and those who labor for wages.

Later, Bane locks most of Gotham’s police officers underneath the city, turning the city over to the common people. The result is instant revolution, with the masses dragging the rich from their homes and expropriating their wealth.

The point’s been made, but I can’t help but mention one of my favorite scenes in the movie. Bruce Wayne attends a ball, where he dances and verbally spars with Selina Kyle (Catwoman), one of Gotham’s marginalized living in a rundown apartment in a seedy neighborhood. With touching sincerity and anger, Anne Hathaway delivers a number of lines on economic injustice, among them the following:

“You think all this can last? There’s a storm coming, Mr. Wayne. You and your friends better batten down the hatches, ’cause when it hits, you’re all gonna wonder how you ever thought you could live so large and leave so little for the rest of us.”


Slovenian philosopher and self-professed “some kind of a communist” Slavoj Zizek (video), however, has expressed disappointment with the film for its anti-revolutionary tenor. The film quite firmly states that if the people are given control of themselves, the result is violence and chaos:



There is this side to the film, and it has clearly drawn inspiration from some of the bloodier incidents of the French Revolution, even making them more sinister. At least the storming of the Bastille was an expression of outrage against the Crown’s practice of taking political prisoners, whereas the prisoners Bane frees from Blackgate Penitentiary appear to be mostly violent offenders. And the movie turns the Committee of Public Safety, which presided over the Reign of Terror, into mere sentencing hearings ruled by a bona fide lunatic, the Scarecrow, who only hands down one of two sentences: death or exile by death.

The Dark Knight Rises doesn’t seem to have much faith in revolution.

But something tells me that’s because Nolan is not trying to side with either the bourgeoisie or the proletariat over and against the other. To return to the man with his savings in his mattress at home, the stockbroker has an immediate rebuttal to this that I don’t take as a defense of status quo capitalism with all its failings so much as a statement highlighting the realities of today’s economy:
 
“If you don’t put those guys down, that stuffing in your mattress might be worth a whole hell of a lot less.”


Nolan’s Batman films are about many kinds of people--rich and poor, law officer and civilian, white collar and blue collar--working together each in their own way for better communities against forces that seek to bring out the worst in us. Consider the scene in the previous film, The Dark Knight, when the Joker plays a ferry full of regular citizens against a ferry full of prison inmates. Each group has the choice of blowing up the other and thereby saving their own lives, but they don’t do it.

The world of Batman is rich in villains, perhaps because the unsavory in human nature is so easy to come by, but Nolan’s films are at least equally populated with heroes, and these heroes go beyond Batman and Jim Gordon to district attorneys, entrepreneurs, police officers, charity directors and the common man, whatever his place in society.

In a sense, anyone can be Batman--we are all Batman, potentially--and each is responsible for doing the Right for the greater good:

“A hero can be anyone, even a man doing something as simple and reassuring as putting a coat around a young boy’s shoulders to let him know the world hadn’t ended.” (Batman himself)


Zizek is not satisfied with this vision of society, and I’m not sure I am, but it has its benefits, and in the absence of a revolution, it provides a ghost of a chance for a somewhat better world in which to live.

Monday, September 2, 2013

It's Okay Not to Have an Opinion About Syria


Now that President Obama has decided to ask Congress’s permission for military involvement in Syria (article), the same polarized invective with which Americans engage in every public debate has found a new outlet. It is possible, however, not to have a strong opinion about some issues, and Syria seems to me a likely candidate for this treatment.

Since I have a tendency to take an interest in ideas, politics and world events and to speak my mind on them, I’m sure there are some who think, “Man, that guy has an opinion about everything!” But I don’t really. I'm well aware that some issues are so large and complex as to defy definitive analysis leading to one sweeping conclusion for or against.

The war in Afghanistan is a good example of this, even though it now appears that the U.S. will mostly be out by the end of 2014. The debate always seemed to play out--and still does to some extent as the U.S.'s role in future years remains under consideration--between those wanting to stay for many years to come and others crying because we weren’t out yesterday.

But it should be clear to everyone that both of these options are highly problematic, in whichever overseas military action you choose. Staying means more death--of soldiers, of civilians--and, of course, a significant financial burden on the nation. That last is no small matter when there are serious problems at home that could be alleviated with some of the money used for war.

And the problems of leaving are equally clear. To stick with the example of Afghanistan, the return of the Taliban to dominance would be a humanitarian tragedy--think of Aesha Mohammadzai (graphic image) and the many like her--and likely mean the return of Al-Qaeda or similar groups seeking the next 9/11 or Madrid train bombings.

Neither option sounds very good to me, so when I ask myself whether we should stay or leave a country like Afghanistan or Iraq, I have no strong opinion. And that’s okay, not just because I don’t have to make the decisions and don’t have enough information to do so anyway, but because it’s better to think critically than to bleat one’s favorite political narrative.

I do have a modest opinion on Syria--one that I mostly adopted because of French philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy’s arguments for humanist intervention (interview)--and it’s that a no-fly zone early on would have done much to aid the rebels and hasten Bashar al-Assad’s fall.

But it’s too late for that now, isn’t it? Now it’s more of a mess than it was before and I have no idea what Obama or Congress should do about it. Having been at war for well over a decade now, we are all too familiar with the pitfalls of military entanglements, and whatever helps the rebels is likely to benefit some terrorists. But staying out also means the continued slaughter of the Syrian people--slaughter the U.S. and other nations have the power to stop.

So I say consider the situation, and if you see no clear answer, reserve judgment. Sometimes it’s okay, even commendable, for regular people like you and me not to have a firm opinion about everything--and to spare the world a little partisan vituperative.