Stories

Batman and the French Revolution: The political meaning of A Dark Knight Rises

Steve Lafleur
August 30, 2012
The Dark Knight Rises is the most politically important movie of a generation. But few critics properly understood it …
Stories

Batman and the French Revolution: The political meaning of A Dark Knight Rises

Steve Lafleur
August 30, 2012
The Dark Knight Rises is the most politically important movie of a generation. But few critics properly understood it …
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

The Dark Knight Rises is the most politically important movie of a generation. But few critics understood it. They seem to have attempted to decipher the film meaning in isolation from the rest of the trilogy. However, The Dark Knight Rises is the Dark Knight’s antithesis. The trilogy is less about political institutions, and more about the civic virtues required in a liberal democracy.

The Batman was born from the notion that a man could do more as a symbol than as a mere mortal. The myth would outlive the man, and would inspire goodness. Amidst the gang-fueled chaos of Gotham, the city needed something to believe in. Thomas Wayne stepped in, using his fortune to help the city’s neediest. However, he and his wife were murdered and his son Bruce left Gotham at 18 seeking justice. He joined Ras al Ghul, leader of the League of Shadows, a mercenary group.

Upon completing his training, Wayne was informed that the League planned to destroy the greatest symbol of corruption: Gotham. Wayne escaped to defend the city, and defeated the League by becoming the Batman. But the victory was fleeting. When the League was defeated, another threat emerged: The Joker.

Whereas the League of Shadows held values that posed an existential threat to Gotham, the Joker had no values. He preyed on Gotham’s hypocrisy. Corruption was rampant in the police force, and many Gothamites attempted to kill their fellow citizens to meet the Joker’s demands. Wayne saw District Attorney Harvey Dent as the man who could restore justice. Once Gotham had a hero without a mask, Wayne could live a normal life with his childhood sweetheart Rachel Dawes. However, she was killed by the Joker and Dent exacted revenge upon corrupt police officers, and was killed by Batman. After thwarting the Joker, Batman took the blame for Dent’s crimes (with Commissioner Gordon’s help), and went into hiding.

The Dark Knight Rises begins with telling words from Commissioner Gordon: “I believed in Harvey Dent.” The story then shifts to the CIA using ruthless tactics to capture a nuclear physicist. They are thwarted by Bane, who kidnaps the physicist as part of his plan to destroy Gotham.

The lies in The Dark Knight unravel as Bane recovers a confession from Gordon, detailing Dent’s crimes and as a result, the Dent Act, used to imprison suspected criminals without due process, lost its moral authority.

Meanwhile, Wayne had lost his belief. He saw death as respite until his Butler Alfred revealed that he had burned a letter from Dawes, in which she revealed that she would never be with Wayne as promised. This required him to come to terms not with what he was willing to die for, but what he was willing to live for. He realized the truth behind the Batman myth. It wasn’t about one man. It was about a conspiracy of selflessness. The Batman could not have functioned without Alfred, nor without Lucious Fox, or Commissioner Gordon. Wayne realized that there were still people worth protecting. So he once again put on the mask to protect his friends, and fellow citizens.

Many interpreted the Dark Knight Rises as a conservative revolt against Occupy Wall Street. This interpretation has survived despite director Christopher Nolan pointing to the French Revolution as his influence for the film’s revolutionary scenes, and the references (Blackgate prison as the Bastille; Jocobinesque tribunals; a eulogy from A Tale of Two Cities).

Furthermore, the new protagonists, John Blake and Selina Kyle, were both critics of the establishment. Ms.Kyle described her failure to escape the criminal underworld: “Once you’ve done what you had to, you can’t do what you want to.” She only sided with the establishment after the revolution. Examining a newly socialized mansion, she lamented that it “used to be someone’s home.” Blake was cynical because the boys home that he grew up in lost the funding from the Wayne Foundation it required to keep troubled youth off the street.

The politics of the Batman trilogy has evolved. Rachel Dawes set the tone for the first film, paraphrasing Tory Edmund Burke: “What chance does Gotham have when the good people do nothing?” Harvey Dent defined the second: “When their enemies were at the gates, the Romans would suspend democracy and appoint one man to protect the city. It wasn’t considered an honor, it was considered a public service.”

Dent’s words suggest an elitist view of society. However, in his last words as Batman, Wayne gives us the real message: “A hero can be anyone. Even a man doing something as simple and reassuring as putting a coat around a little boy’s shoulders to let him know that the world hadn’t ended.” When the Batman dies, Wayne’s Estate is left to Blake’s boys home, and Blake is inspired to take Wayne’s place as Robin. The conspiracy continues.

There are few overtly political statements in the film. The most obvious is that extreme poverty cannot coexist with decadence. Absent other opportunities, kids turn to crime. This fuels the vicious cycle of funnelling impoverished youth through the justice system. Breaking that cycle requires a commitment to fighting the root causes of poverty. Given the film’s ambivalence to institutions, this suggests a need to strengthen civil society. We need symbols that give us hope. But they are empty if they do not inspire action. For our institutions to be effective, we must continue the conspiracy of selflessness that has allowed Western civilization to thrive.

———————-

Steve LaFleur is a political consultant and public policy analyst based in Calgary, Alberta. He recently graduated with an MA in Political Science from Wilfrid Laurier University, and was a research associate at the Cascade Policy Institute in Portland, Oregon during the summer of 2009 as a part of the Koch Fellowship Program.

Love C2C Journal? Here's how you can help us grow.

More for you

The Day After: How Ottawa’s Clarity Act Could Destroy the Federation It Was Meant to Protect

With Alberta headed for a vote on having a vote on independence, many Canadians may think the threat of separation has evaporated. Or that it’s a long way off. Or that, in any case, Ottawa’s Clarity Act will shut it down and protect the federation. But in the concluding instalment of their series (read Part I here and Part II here), George Koch and Jim Mason explode that delusion. The Act is more likely to increase the “Yes” vote which, they predict, will trigger more political wrangling, more bad faith and bitterness, possible civil unrest and even the province’s annexation by the U.S. The consequences, in other words, are dire no matter which side you’re on.

Too Clever by Half: Why Ottawa’s Clarity Act Helps Neither Side in Alberta’s Separation Debate

The House of Commons once had an effective law in front of it that laid out clear steps to assure that any provincial referendum on independence would be democratic and any negotiations after a “Yes” vote would be fair. But it wasn’t the current Clarity Act – it was a bill put forward by the Opposition Reform Party in 1996, and the Liberal government chose to ignore it. Instead, it passed its own legislation designed to crush support for any subsequent secession movement. In Part II of their series on what the Clarity Act means to today’s debate over Alberta’s future, George Koch and Jim Mason delve into the Act’s origin story and explain why it’s so blatantly stacked in favour of Ottawa – and how that could inflame separatist sentiment and undermine the federalist cause.

Canada’s Other Productivity Crisis: The Daily Irritants That Slow Us Down and Sap Our Spirit

Multi-factor verification. Customer surveys. SMS alerts. Endless online check-ins. Technology was supposed to free up our time for better things. Instead, it has created endless obstacles to getting anything done. Plus there’s the constant impact of government regulations and questionable safety measures that further rob us of our valuable time. Peter Shawn Taylor looks at the absurd and annoying ways that 21st-century life ties us up and grinds us down. While some examples seem faintly comical, taken together they comprise what Taylor argues is a micro-productivity crisis of national proportions that is no laughing matter.

More from this author

The Death of the Automobile Has Been Greatly Exaggerated

Millenials possess fewer cars and driver licences than previous generations and urban living has become safer and cooler. Yet, the decline in car ownership is far from one way traffic and as usual the government is doing its bit to stymie consumer preference.