![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
When Rush Limbaugh came up with his wild conspiracy theory* about a deliberate link between Romney's Bain Capital and Bane being the name of the villain in the latest Batman movie, there was lots of nonsense thrown around.
*He claimed after the fact that he hadn't said anything about a conspiracy, but his actual remarks specifically said that it was no coincidence that Bane was chosen to be the villain so close to the election. Hollywood's liberal bias being implicit, of course.
Self-described "Right-wing extremist" Chuck Dixon, who co-created the character two decades ago, phoned into a Right-wing talk radio show.
First, he fact-checked Rush:
“It’s ridiculous. Obviously Bane was not created as an attack on Mitt Romney. We never heard of Romney twenty years ago.”
All well and good. But then he went on about the new movie:
“My understanding is that Bane is more of an Occupy Wall Street type. Romney is more like Bruce Wayne.”
Romney is like Bruce Wayne? Well, in that he became fabulously, cartoonishly wealthy for no better reason than that his parents were rich. But that's where the similarities end. Bruce Wayne has dedicated his life to helping the poor and downtrodden. A fair chunk of his income goes to the charitable Wayne Foundation. Through them, he invests in infrastructure and public works projects as well as funding orphanages, rehab programs, medical clinics, and halfway houses. Oh yes, and he risks his life to fight crime, save lives, and give people hope for a better tomorrow. Mitt Romney has dedicated his life to increasing his already mind-boggling net worth, with no regard to the consequences for the people whose companies get shut down and whose jobs get outsourced. He says he's "not concerned about the very poor." But he does tithe to the Mormon Church, which then spends that money on building more temples and fighting against gay rights.
But what's this about Nolan's Bane being an "Occupy Wall Street" type? When I first heard that, I was confused. Bane's character has had a few different origins in different media. In the comics, he came to Gotham to make a name for himself and increase his own power. He set a bunch of criminals loose, let Batman exhaust himself chasing them all down, and then followed him home, beat him up, and broke his back. On the screen, he's generally been a mercenary, brought to Gotham by powerful people who want Batman crushed so they can move ahead with their own sinister plans. Generally, those plans involve grabbing even more power for themselves while making things worse for the common people. Which is pretty much exactly the opposite of what Occupy Wall Street is all about.
Then I saw the movie. Bane's reasons for coming to Gotham are complex - he's a mercenary, but he's also got his own agenda, and there's someone else involved - but what he does after taking control of Gotham disturbed me. He talks about how the wealthy are corrupting everything and the police are their evil minions. Then he turns Gotham over to the 99%, who hunt down cops, run wild in the streets, hurt and kill and loot, and set up "courts" (presided over by Jonathan Crane, the Scarecrow, the villain obsessed with irrational fear) which summarily execute people for the crime of being rich. And he sets all the prisoners (including what amounts to the entire Gotham Mafia) loose on the streets in the name of equality for the wrongfully oppressed.
It's madness. And it is a very twisted vision of Occupy. Taking their words and ideals, and making an evil mockery of them. It's not what Occupy is. It's not what it's about. But it is what Occupy looks like to a Right Wing extremist. And it's what Nolan chose to show to millions. I'm disturbed and saddened by that.
So much for Hollywood's Liberal bias.
ETA: My friend Erik points out that, unlike Chuck Dixon and Frank Miller, apparently Nolan is sympathetic to Occupy. Which complicates things. I still think Bane was using the language of Occupy, though it was clear he wasn't sincere about it. And I can see how Dixon would see that and declare that he belongs in the movement. But I'm not sure what Nolan was thinking.
*He claimed after the fact that he hadn't said anything about a conspiracy, but his actual remarks specifically said that it was no coincidence that Bane was chosen to be the villain so close to the election. Hollywood's liberal bias being implicit, of course.
Self-described "Right-wing extremist" Chuck Dixon, who co-created the character two decades ago, phoned into a Right-wing talk radio show.
First, he fact-checked Rush:
“It’s ridiculous. Obviously Bane was not created as an attack on Mitt Romney. We never heard of Romney twenty years ago.”
All well and good. But then he went on about the new movie:
“My understanding is that Bane is more of an Occupy Wall Street type. Romney is more like Bruce Wayne.”
Romney is like Bruce Wayne? Well, in that he became fabulously, cartoonishly wealthy for no better reason than that his parents were rich. But that's where the similarities end. Bruce Wayne has dedicated his life to helping the poor and downtrodden. A fair chunk of his income goes to the charitable Wayne Foundation. Through them, he invests in infrastructure and public works projects as well as funding orphanages, rehab programs, medical clinics, and halfway houses. Oh yes, and he risks his life to fight crime, save lives, and give people hope for a better tomorrow. Mitt Romney has dedicated his life to increasing his already mind-boggling net worth, with no regard to the consequences for the people whose companies get shut down and whose jobs get outsourced. He says he's "not concerned about the very poor." But he does tithe to the Mormon Church, which then spends that money on building more temples and fighting against gay rights.
But what's this about Nolan's Bane being an "Occupy Wall Street" type? When I first heard that, I was confused. Bane's character has had a few different origins in different media. In the comics, he came to Gotham to make a name for himself and increase his own power. He set a bunch of criminals loose, let Batman exhaust himself chasing them all down, and then followed him home, beat him up, and broke his back. On the screen, he's generally been a mercenary, brought to Gotham by powerful people who want Batman crushed so they can move ahead with their own sinister plans. Generally, those plans involve grabbing even more power for themselves while making things worse for the common people. Which is pretty much exactly the opposite of what Occupy Wall Street is all about.
Then I saw the movie. Bane's reasons for coming to Gotham are complex - he's a mercenary, but he's also got his own agenda, and there's someone else involved - but what he does after taking control of Gotham disturbed me. He talks about how the wealthy are corrupting everything and the police are their evil minions. Then he turns Gotham over to the 99%, who hunt down cops, run wild in the streets, hurt and kill and loot, and set up "courts" (presided over by Jonathan Crane, the Scarecrow, the villain obsessed with irrational fear) which summarily execute people for the crime of being rich. And he sets all the prisoners (including what amounts to the entire Gotham Mafia) loose on the streets in the name of equality for the wrongfully oppressed.
It's madness. And it is a very twisted vision of Occupy. Taking their words and ideals, and making an evil mockery of them. It's not what Occupy is. It's not what it's about. But it is what Occupy looks like to a Right Wing extremist. And it's what Nolan chose to show to millions. I'm disturbed and saddened by that.
So much for Hollywood's Liberal bias.
ETA: My friend Erik points out that, unlike Chuck Dixon and Frank Miller, apparently Nolan is sympathetic to Occupy. Which complicates things. I still think Bane was using the language of Occupy, though it was clear he wasn't sincere about it. And I can see how Dixon would see that and declare that he belongs in the movement. But I'm not sure what Nolan was thinking.