After having watched The Dark Knight Rises again through a more scrutinizing lens, I can state with some assuredness that the overall incoherence and commingling of incomplete, incompatible ideas throughout the plot have certainly rendered it rather inspiring for multiple angles of analysis. There were concepts which had potential intrigue if given sufficient focus and development, yet, were instead muddled beneath layers of distractingly discordant, complicated, and illogical elements that compromised the lucidity and strength of the nascent sociological discussions the film seemed desirous of cultivating. For me personally, the paramount example of a detrimental execution of a compelling narrative thread was the handling of Bane’s “revolution” and its ideological foundations, as well as the scope of its influence and adoption by the average Gotham citizen.
The incendiary language Bane employs to instigate the dissolution of structure and order in Gotham, in conjunction with general inferences of pervasive corruption amongst the elite, is seemingly referential to historical revolutions and their aftermaths, particularly that of the French against the estate system in the late eighteenth century. However, anatomizing the nature and fervid escalation of a revolution necessitates first establishing the background context of the dismal circumstances or tribulations which predicated the virulent propagation of rebelliousness in the populace and defined the enumerated issues they intended to have redressed through their actions. Though still a flawed representation of a burgeoning revolt, Joker was able to more effectively explore the underlying rationale to its protests by entrenching the arc of its protagonist within the crumbling, oppressive societal structure that deprived its citizens of security, welfare, health services, and financial solvency, eventually leading to their insurgency. Conversely, The Dark Knight Rises doesn’t appear to explicitly or visually depict any incipient discontent amongst Gotham residents, and, in consideration of the eight years of apparently declining criminality and instability, their possible allegiance to Bane is a bit questionable. Selena heavily implies the existence of profound income stratification and corruption when slow dancing with Bruce, though this is somewhat expository and minor for a narrative distinctly concerned with the collective attitudes, behaviors, and morality permeating the city’s inhabitants. I also thought it wasn’t particularly clear the extent to which average citizens were incited by Bane’s orations or his measures to tarnish the trustworthiness and reputation of their government officials. If the film had taken place immediately following the events of The Dark Knight, then societal volatility would be more explicable, and the sudden reveal that their sole, noble defender, Harvey Dent, was a murderer could easily shatter the brittle, precarious stability which was melded from Harvey’s unblemished legacy after the Joker’s capture. With eight years of efficiently eliminating violent criminals from the streets, the memory of Harvey himself is outlived by the results of the policies he left behind. Even with the assumption that the average citizen was impelled by Bane’s professions of “giving the city back” to them, there still remains the evident problem of over-simplification, or the presumed homogeneity to the character of a revolution, which ignores the disparate ideals, motivations, and level of personal restraint that are categorical to any large-scale movement of people. Essentially, I couldn’t ascertain if some individuals started rioting and ransacking simply for the fun of it, because they desired to exact targeted revenge on a certain wealthy person, or if they truly believed in Bane as a leader capable of disrupting the established social order. Rebellions can be internally fractious, and I wish I could’ve seen Gotham’s population fragment and disperse their loyalties, especially once Bane’s authoritarian phase grows progressively more punishing and radical.
With respect to the themes and symbolism that were disseminated throughout the film, it seemed that the interconnection between the antithetical concepts of hope and despair predominantly characterized the relationship and contrasting ideologies of Batman and Bane. Bane’s methods of exacting torment are intrinsically concerned with presenting a tantalizing possibility of hope before unceremoniously extinguishing the chances of its attainment. He believes that true despair is solely born from the subversion of hope, which manifests as the torturous protraction of his victims’ lives before they “have his permission to die”. For example, Bruce is left to watch his city capitulate to Bane while the opportunity for escape looms just overhead, and Gotham itself is naively convinced that its destruction is avoidable and rests in the hands of an average citizen while, in actuality, its demise is ineluctable. Batman is representational of the opposite; he is a symbol of hope emerging from the shadow of despair, metaphorically portrayed through his ascension out of the laden darkness in the depths of the pit towards the light of redemption and liberation. While the foundational establishment of these parallels between the primary protagonist and antagonist is conceptually fascinating, the execution is again somewhat weakened by the truncated development and limited percolation of these themes across all facets of the narrative. In particular, both Bane and Batman’s roles as offerers of hope could have been further incorporated into their respective interactions with the struggling residents of Gotham. For instance, with Batman gone and Harvey’s memory in tatters, Bane could have been more thoroughly invested in adopting the persona of a charismatic leader dedicated to manipulating Gotham into ceding power to him before eventually breaking their spirits with the reveal of his cataclysmic intentions. In contrast to the Joker who used fear and chaos to wrest control of the city and its “soul” from Batman, Bane perhaps should have been more clearly shown to initially supplant Batman as the common citizens’ salvation. To retain consistency with The Dark Knight, the primary contingent of Gotham’s “spirit”, helmed by Blake, should have eventually proven itself loyal to upholding the legacy of Batman through its adoption of his moral incorruptibility and true, unwavering devotion to its own protection. However, in the actual film, with Bane being relegated to Miranda’s pawn and the battle for Gotham seemingly restricted to a confrontation between Bane’s mercenaries and the police, the philosophical implications of the persuasive resonance Bane’s platform had with the public at large are, consequently, never fully addressed. Though Bane’s influence is formally expunged and Batman is lauded as Gotham’s true savior, the underlying inequities and torrent of disaffection which first rendered people susceptible to Bane’s promises would likely still remain as attenuated, unresolved issues after Gotham elastically reconstitutes its earlier, stratified power structure.
The city of Gotham and its general population are often personified in Batman’s universe, imbued with distinctive identities and subjected to psychological and external stressors which necessitate a defined arc of growth and change in order to tenaciously overcome. The Dark Knight Rises posed numerous potential ethical questions on the diverse character of a revolution and the inextricable correlation between income disparity and crime; however, unfortunately, none of these ideas appear to be completely developed nor unified into an overarching message with logical and thematic consistency.