The Dark Knight Rises Was a Cautionary Tale About Populism
Ten years after its release, the final film of Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy is possibly even more relevant.

In the weeks after the release of The Dark Knight Rises, which was dominating the American box office 10 years ago this month, director Christopher Nolan steadfastly denied that he'd embedded a political perspective in the final film of his massively successful Batman trilogy.
"What we're really trying to do is show the cracks of society, show the conflicts that somebody would try to wedge open," he told Rolling Stone in a response to a question about whether the film's villain, Bane, leading an uprising against Gotham City's 1 percent was explicitly mirroring (and criticizing) the then-relevant Occupy Wall Street movement. "We're going to get wildly different interpretations of what the film is supporting and not supporting, but it's not doing any of those things. It's just telling a story."
That story, however, is undeniably imbued with political symbolism. Nolan's final Batman film builds on themes that were central to both Batman Begins and The Dark Knight—the blurry line between heroic individualism and chaotic vigilantism and questions about the nature of justice—but the movie's fulcrum is a parable about the dark places that populism can lead.
Or, rather, where it can be led. "If the populist movement is manipulated by somebody who is evil, that surely is a criticism of the evil person," Nolan said in that same Rolling Stone interview, tipping his hand ever so slightly. "That has happened to other societies throughout history, many times, so why not here? Why not Gotham?"
Indeed, The Dark Knight Rises is not a narrowly drawn critique of the Occupy movement but is better understood as a full-blown critique of populism in general—and, more accurately, of the ways that populist movements are cynically used by leaders who seek power for themselves rather than as genuine expressions of the will of the people. In that regard, the movie is perhaps even more relevant now than when it was released.
It's no accident, surely, that Bane's revolution begins with a fiery speech encouraging the people of Gotham to storm a prison. Nor that the revolution soon devolves into show trials and public executions. The French Revolution, perhaps the ultimate historical example of populism gone awry, is a recurring motif throughout the film—near the end, Police Commissioner Jim Gordon eulogizes Batman by quoting from A Tale of Two Cities, just in case you hadn't already gotten the point.
At first blush, that parallel might lend a sort of old-school conservative ethos to the movie. "What passes for a right-wing movie these days is The Dark Knight Rises, which submits the rather modest premise that, irritating though the rich may be, actually killing them and taking all their stuff might be excessive," quipped New York magazine's Jonathan Chait in his review of the movie.
But it's overly simplistic to view The Dark Knight Rises as a warning about the chaos that could descend if the institutions running society—the prisons, the political leaders, the police—are torn down.
After all, Nolan spent the first two films in the franchise highlighting various ways in which the institutions at the center of Gotham's society are nearly hopelessly corrupt. Bruce Wayne is initially motivated to take on the cowl and cape in Batman Begins in order to confront a criminal mob that's untouchable by law enforcement. That corruption is personified in the fall of reform-minded District Attorney Harvey Dent in The Dark Knight. Those with the power to make a difference are either gone (like Wayne's parents) or indifferent, Rachel Dawes explains to Bruce in the first film. Gotham, we are repeatedly told by various characters throughout the trilogy, is beyond saving.
At the same time, we're shown that the people of Gotham are fundamentally good. The most memorable example: When given the chance by the Joker to blow up a ferry full of convicted criminals in order to save themselves from the same fate, a group of random Gotham civilians refuses to do so.
To read The Dark Knight Rises as a conservative warning about the importance of institutions and the dangers of mobs would require throwing out much of the moral framework that Nolan built into the trilogy. Something more subtle is afoot.
In fact, it's the institutional corruption that invites Bane's and Talia al-Ghul's plot to destroy the city in the third film. That the villains have chosen a populist uprising as the form of Gotham's destruction is a cruel joke perpetrated on both Batman (who insists on the fundamental virtue of the people, despite the mob violence) and the people of the city themselves, who only believe they're seizing power but will actually be obliterated. "As I terrorize Gotham, I will feed its people hope to poison their souls," Bane explains at one point.
To put it all together, then, the movie is a warning about populism and about the ways in which corrupt, failing institutions invite populist takeovers that are little more than cover for authoritarians. In the end, it's not the police, the banks, or the military that can be trusted to stand against such a threat. It's actually just people, motivated to do what's right even without a governmental structure around them. It's not just Batman who thwarts Bane's and al-Ghul's plot; it's an entire resistance movement that slowly rises from within Gotham (notably, this happens without Batman's help, as he is detained elsewhere for much of the movie's second act).
"He may not be a hero of the Randian variety, but Bruce Wayne's willingness to sacrifice for the good of others is a cinematic depiction of the best that free humans are capable of," Reason's Stephanie Slade wrote for U.S. News & World Report shortly after the film was released a decade ago. "His heroics underscore one of the foundational precepts of the libertarian movement. It doesn't take big government to make the world a better place—it takes people choosing to do the right thing."
Of course, having a flying Batmobile never hurts.
In the 10 years since The Dark Knight Rises hit theaters, Batman has already been rebooted on the big screen twice—as a brooding, warped loner with a vendetta against Superman and as a…brooding, warped loner with a vendetta against criminals. With his wealth, cool gadgets, and penchant for vigilantism, Bruce Wayne is always going to be something of a reactionary figure, and the newer films have (as Nolan's did, though to a lesser degree) questioned whether Batman should be seen as a hero or problematic billionaire with a mental disorder.
But Nolan's version of the caped crusader has staying power that other iterations of the character lack, in no small part because of how his Batman films grappled with questions about what makes society work—and what could make it fail.
In the first two movies, Batman's foes fail in their efforts to use fear and chaos to destroy Gotham. In the third, they try politics—and for a while, it succeeds.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I am so over the canard of "the evil populism." Populist movements and populism are so broadly applied and used in our political discourse. What is "populism" to one is "democracy" to the other. Complaints that ideas that are popular are bad is just bizarre.
Of course democracy and populism can lead to terrible things. That's life. But at the end of the day, simply being populist in support of X doesn't make X wrong.
And throughout history populist movements ebb and flow.
At this point, there are honestly too many people in journalism, which results in them talking about the same subjects over and over again all while trying to provide a new take on an old issue.
At this point, there are honestly too many people in journalism, which results in them talking about the same subjects over and over again all while trying to provide a new take on an old issue.
This.
Sometimes, a movie is just a movie.
I made $30,030 in just 5 weeks working part-time right from my apartment. tgb. When I lost my last business I got tired right away and luckily I found this job online and with that I am able to start reaping lots right through my house. Anyone can achieve this top level career and make more money online by:-
Reading this article:>>>> https://extradollars3.blogspot.com/
The thing about populist movements is that they always kick off when the ruling class has gotten so out of touch, decadent, and corrupt that ground-up pushback is seen as necessary to get things right again.
Pete Quinones was on Dave Smith and he said it wasn't even about populism. It was about preferring natural elites over government declared elites.
Bane was the opposite of a populist. He didn't make popular appeals in the press, try to build a majority, and run for office. He showed up with a bomb and a gang and took over. Then he emptied the prisons (never a popular move) to beef up his personal army.
The League of Shadows, in the Nolan films, was explicitly anti-populist and rather overtly Marxist. FFS, they're called The League *of Shadows*, they don't achieve their aims through broad popular appeal. Two of the three films are about them fomenting a violent revolution on behalf of the people. People with whom they don't associate and whom aren't supposed to know they exist.
I have a lot to say about Boehm, an ostensible libertarian, being so utterly obsessed with populism. But I just want to start with this.
Chait says: "What passes for a right-wing movie these days is The Dark Knight Rises, which submits the rather modest premise that, irritating though the rich may be, actually killing them and taking all their stuff might be excessive,"
Boehm goes through a bunch of evidence and concludes, "To read The Dark Knight Rises as a conservative warning about the importance of institutions and the dangers of mobs would require throwing out much of the moral framework that Nolan built into the trilogy."
At no point does Boehm provide any evidence that the "conservative" warning is about "institutions". Chait doesn't say that- he is specifically talking about KILLING RICH PEOPLE and taking their stuff. So what Boehm is trying to do here is a little slight of hand. Some people- conservatives even- have found a message in the movie about how it is bad for the mob to run amok over "others". And the only way for Boehm to articulate a rebuttal is for him to CHANGE the conservative argument to being about institutions.
This is why Reason needs an editor whose job is more than writing click-worthy headlines and inserting links.
"cynically used by leaders who seek power for themselves rather than as genuine expressions of the will of the people."
Honestly pretty surprised he didnt use it somehow as a warning that Deathsantis is Bane or something. As that's basically reason's editorial position
Bane is basically Lenin. Claiming to stand up for the little guy by murdering the rich and destroying institutions, but sitting on a doomsday device eventually going to explode and destroy everyone.
And like Lenin, he was released in to the wild by a government that turned out to be too clever for its own good.
*was* OWS relevant?
It was relevant to people who had to walk past Occupy's piles of garbage and shit in the streets, as well as risk assaults and rape while their "Counsels" handled them as "internal matters." They were the precursors to today's homeless encampments.
saw one driving into Oakland that looked like Cerritos Auto Mall for the destitute ... put OWS to shame
I had the 'privilege' of being in Portland for a week on interviews during the OWS fun. Did a lot of walking around the city from place to place and saw a good bit of it.
The best way I have found to describe it to people was a mix of a homeless/lefty encampment like CHAZ mixed with a bunch of young Antifa-like kids.
Very happy I ended up in the Southeast US, dodged a bullet there.
Pull up the articles on Reason from that time. It was pretty significant in the context of the general discontent that happened in the wake of the Great Recession.
Epic fail, i.e. trying to define and equate populism with fascism or worse and nothing else. Will Rogers once said '....I never met a libertarian I didn't like...' but changed it to never met a man to get even bigger laughs.
I'm not seeing the fascists putting little boys in dresses and cutting off their dicks. Fascism would be an upgrade. No fascist owes any apology to any liberal for anything.
But it's overly simplistic to view The Dark Knight Rises as a warning about the chaos that could descend if the institutions running society—the prisons, the political leaders, the police—are torn down.
Oh fuck off, Boehm.
Those institutions were destroyed ages ago, and now the extreme left is wearing their corpses as skin suits and demanding the former's respect.
AMC's The Walking Dems
Finding populism to be the culprit would be like saying "people's freedom to associate made the events of the DKR more likely."
Any system can lead to an unhealthy, mad, dystopian society. A democracy can vote in a dictator. Populism could theoretically lead to every outcome from utopia (though very unlikely because...people) to dystopian revolt. But so can every other system.
The attack on populism is purely a protection of institutions, even when those institutions are highly corrupt.
Lol.
It was the shoddiest of the Nolan Batman movies. Lots of big plot issues, including people literally "hacking" the stock exchange, in public, in order to bankrupt Bruce Wayne. And then after they decided Batman had lost literally all of his resources, they just skimmed over the fact that Batman escaped from a prison in the middle of nowhere and somehow managed to get himself home...after all his resources were eliminated.
It also posed to the audience that the Batman of the first two movies in that trilogy just decided to retire for something like 8 years and became a hermit between films, which is quite a leap for his character and isn't really set up or properly explained.
It was the shoddiest of the Nolan Batman movies.
Agreed - he didn't actually have a third movie in him, as it turned out.
Wonder if Heath Ledger's demise hung over the whole production.
Not consciously, but in the background. Subliminally.
Batman Begins was far and away the best of the 3, and the best superhero movie overall. The Dark Knight got rave reviews, especially for the acting, but doesn't have the rewatchability of The Dark Knight Rises.
True, but Ledger as the Joker provided the most compelling aspect of the entire trilogy
Bane was anarcho-marxist. And the trials are clearly a reference to Stalin's show trials.
Ugh. Populism just might be the most vile political ideology. I mean, the idea that government should promote the interests of "the common man"? Totally depraved.
Koch / Reason libertarianism, of course, is the polar opposite of populism. Our philosophy insists that government's highest purpose is to create and maintain the conditions under which the 20 to 30 richest people on the planet can get even richer. (Not coincidentally, this elite group includes Reason.com's billionaire benefactor Charles Koch.) That's why we demand explicitly anti-populist policies like unlimited, unrestricted immigration — especially during a pandemic! — and a $0.00 / hour minimum wage.
#InDefenseOfBillionaires
#AgainstPopulism
"I mean, the idea that government should promote the interests of "the common man"? Totally depraved."
It's not actually parody if you just quote Shrike and Jeff verbatim.
The conditions that make "the 20 to 30 richest people on the planet even richer" are the ones they pay government for. Things like mislabeled "vaccines" paid out of our pockets to companies granted blanket immunity, regulations that affect new businesses and small businesses the same way as a concrete block tied to the ankles of a mob victim thrown into the river. And lockdowns and orders to close businesses that have the same effect as a Kristallnacht.
Why dance around the obvious, unless the article is an example of dumbed-down education in history?
The regime established by the villain Bane in Gotham City is a perfect summary and parody of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia of 1917. Take over by hook and crook, and deceiving some or most of the poor, take over as a government by enforcing a monopoly of force, eliminating middle-class ("bourgeois") opposition by eliminating opponents in "show trials", and all else.
What is most amazing is that nobody is talking about the uncanny and scary parallel of Bane's gang releasing all the prisoners from the prisons (same as the al-Ghul in another such movie) to help enforce the new regime, with the release from prison and release from bail and release from charges for the worst rioters of antifa and BLM!! Tucker Carlson calls them "Biden voters", but they're more comparable to Hitler's Brownshirts.
Compare that to the supposed "benefactor" to Bruce Wayne in the movie, the rich lady investor who was actually in league with the monster villain Bane. This is so very suggestive of the alliance of the super-rich politically dominant actors like George Soros with the worst violent scum "of the baser sort", that having just seen this sentence, you cannot get that suspicion out of your head.
The headline alone made me spit my drink out all over my monitor.
Reason Magazine: Top Men forever!
Especially for Shackford.
I'm beginning to think Reason magazine should change its name to Reasons Magazine.
Totally apt.
I'm pretty sure leftists are the ones emptying out the prisons and protesting the national anthem btw...
To put it all together, then, the movie is a warning about populism and about the ways in which corrupt, failing institutions invite populist takeovers that are little more than cover for authoritarians.
Boehm talks as if these are distinct phenomena. A failed elite will inevitably invite populism. All populism is is a revolt against the authority of elites. Nolan Charts (pun unintended, but appreciated) aside, there's no more reason for libertarians to be at odds with revolts against failed, corrupt elites than there is for them to be supportive of them. Especially when those elites are defined by their connection to state authority. If one is concerned about the future and status of individual liberty, it doesn't particularly strike me that it's the populists holding political prisoners, demanding redefinition of words on command, shutting down people's right to live normal life, destroying people's lives and reputations for unfavored opinions, and re-interpreting education as indoctrination. That's all coming from our elites.
Agreed. The author obviously only wants the left to have a monopoly on populism.
You mean Ron DeSantis? He's the only prominent elite I can think of who's actually forcing people to limit their speech and doxxing children, teachers, and parents.
Or is he the sort of elite who is on your side against the other elites?
Your ditch is tiresome. There’s no evidence of DeSantis doxxing, well, anybody. And denying education drones a captive audience to proselytize their agenda is hardly a violation of free speech.
Libertarianism Plus!
They've been playing the '89 version on tv lately. Batman kills a lot of people in that movie.
Ronald Reagan campaigned against Jimmy Carter using populist themes, the 1994 Republican take over of Congress was conducted with candidates campaigning as populists, Donald Trump won the White House in 2016 campaigning as a populist outsider.
Populism is not tantamount to totalitarianism be it Socialism or Fascism. What populism is is an ideology pitching the people as the morally good force against the elites. Sounds pretty libertarian to me. The difference is with the right, Tony Blair said it best:
"If you put right-wing populism against left populism, right-wing populism will win."
Leftists, including journalists, still don't get what Trump was. They never will because they're pathologically subservient.
MAGA was/is so powerful because Trump wasn't the origin of his ideas and policies, he was the focal point, or avatar, of what people already thought and wanted. He was the Common Man, Joe Sixpack, unleashed as politician and head of state.
There's more to say there. We'll get back to it.
So apparently an anonymous defensive coordinator in the NFL, in a league wide survey, said Lamar Jackson isn't a "QB1" to him, even if he wins a bunch of MVPs.
(I wrote a bunch of in the weeds stuff, and decided to delete it for being besides the point).
Kyler Murray just signed a big deal, and some are (rightly) skeptical.
So now sports media is all abuzz about black QBs being disrespected... because racism must be found.
What we're seeing at work here is the opposite of populism, despite appealing to "popular" sentiments/narratives. But it's manufactured. It's a controversy being handed down to the mob, and instructing the mob to be upset.
One way you can tell? Because Mahomes was asked about black QBs being judged differently today, so now you have people claiming Mahomes is disrespected. Nobody claims he's not the best or second or third best QB in the league... but the mob is talking about how Mahomes has to do so much more because he's (half) black.
The opposition to populism comes from, and in the form of, the most artificial perspectives.
For the record: Matt Ryan is the most inappropriately disrespected QB in NFL history... and it's because he took over after Vick, and isn't black.
Regardless of any themes for or against populism, that movie was decidedly meh for me. It made too many poor choices: Bane had that weak, muffled voice; Bruce Wayne was crippled and out of commission for a large chunk of the runtime (until his broken back was fixed with a punch!), and Talia’s characterization did the original character a disservice. But worst of all in my mind, was how it posited that a fusion reactor could turn into an H-bomb that could blow up Gotham. Stupid and unscientific narratives like that are the reason poorly informed people are against new technologies.
This is why I prefer Marvel. Batman is a wealthy vigilante, every pimple-faced Ayn Rand fanboy's wet dream. Not once does anyone ever say, "If Batman is the hero we need, why don't we just put him on the city payroll and rid ourselves of all these disturbing implications?" Sure, some of his best friends are cops, but he wouldn't be needed if the government were shown to be remotely good at its most basic functions.
Superman, of course, is literally an Übermensch.
So maybe this is why the message of the Batman films is a little murky. DC is itself fascist propaganda. The third movie isn't a critique of populism. That's all window dressing. It's like every other Batman movie: a critique of bad guys and the government that fails to stop them.
I haven't watched a Marvel movie since they became too numerous for one lifetime, but in the old days they solved problems with science, bureaucracy, and tolerance. My kind of superheroes.
Your stream of consciousness is a wonder to behold.
Did professor X and Tony Stark run their operation with unicorn blood or something?
Stark took his tech private in the MCU. CapAm resisted government regulation and registration.
Ah, and here I was not hating it as much as I apparently should have been...
Murray Rothbard pointed out that populism, per se, is not necessarily a bad thing. It helped get Donald Trump elected in 2016, which is a great thing, not because he's some perfect libertarian, let alone an atheist left-libertarian, but because his campain exposed the tyranny being imposed by the Deep State and the Deep-State cartel of crony capitalists, and forced them to put all kinds of rigging on the 2020 in plain view of the Internet. Anybody who isn't such a dope as to believe government has been open to checking things on not-officially-approved sources.
The "populists" in Dark Knight Rises railed against the wealthy, empowered the public to take over their wealth (Catwoman's girlfriend tells her "it's OUR house now") and kept the police underground. They created a pseudonation around the city by taking out bridges and threatening to blow up the city if the outside world intervened. Their used their own patrol, courts, economy, etc.
We typically refer to these populists as ........ SOCIALISTS. But Reason obviously cannot exist in a world where the likes of BLM is a corrosive influence on society, even in popular entertainment, for obvious reasons.
The villains in all three batman movies are anarchists. The league of shadows saw Gotham as a modern day end of Rome, a decadent and irredeemable society facing eminent ruin. It became a cancer that had to be taken out before it would metastasize further. Ras Al Ghoul doesn't consider Thomas Wayne a savior of Gotham, he thought he allowed it "limp on" and only delay the inevitable, not unlike how he was shot by the very people he was trying to save. Watch the scene in the manor near the end.
The Joker wanted to expose Gotham's true nature under the sheen of order by unleashing chaos. Bane is legacy of league of shadows but rather then destroying Gotham he remade it as a collective society.
All societal movement is populist of some kind. Ghandi was an Indian socialists. Every war is won by people fought for their countries, even in a coalition. It's bad economic policy for a nationalist fervor to clamp down on free trade and imports. It's anarchy when people resort to mob action to get what they want, which is what you see often on the left.
I voted for Trump because of Gossamer.
I was expecting a link to "Cartoons are like gossamer, and one doesn’t dissect gossamer... I liked the kitty."