The Dark Knight Rises – Pulp Diction

We see a lot of movies and have a lot of thoughts, but beware the spoilers beneath for “Iron Man 3,” “The Dark Knight Rises,” and “Star Trek: Into Darkness.”

In 1967, when the character of Khan first graced the original Star Trek series, the U.S. was an entirely different landscape for racial politics. Gene Roddenberry, problematic as he may be as a showrunner, made a brave step for race portrayals on television; a diverse cast, the first interracial kiss, and Khan: the pinnacle of biological engineering, and portrayed by a man of color.

Although B-Batch delivers the menace and cunning characteristic of Khan in Star Trek: Into Darkness, there are plenty of actors of Indian descent who could have easily matched B-Batch in caliber and skill. Khan is a unique villain in the Star Trek canon in that he is intelligent and cunning as well as cold and ruthless. In short; he’s an intriguing and complex villain that makes for a fascinating character study, and it’s disappointing that this iconic character has fallen victim to another instance of plot-twist-whitewashing.

Iron Man 3 tackled the fundamental problem of racist villainy by developing a plot twist ⅔ of the way through the movie that shows that The Mandarin takes two forms: Ben Kingsley, the front man actor, and Guy Pearce, the mastermind behind it all. Neither of these actors being of Chinese descent.

Similarly, in The Dark Knight Rises, Bane (another whitewashed character) is ultimately revealed to be only a frontman; working for equally whitewashed Talia Al-Ghul played by french actress Marion Cotillard, who has been masquerading as Miranda Tate the entire time.

With all these roles, we see people of color being portrayed as, yes, villains (also problematic), but also being recast in blockbusters as white people, under the guise of “a big reveal.” We appreciate the need to avoid the racist caricatures, but hiding a racist legacy through whitewashing is not necessarily the way to do it.

Would it not have been better to address this deeply flawed character by dispelling notions of such horrendous stereotypes and replacing them with complex and fully realized characters? The good news for comic book fans is that studios are taking the two dimensional, racist, caricatures and replacing them with—hallelujah! Fully formed, developed, and intriguing villains who can provide rich stories and discussions around evil. The bad news is that they seem to believe that the only way audiences can take such portrayals seriously is when they are white actors.

Play it off as white guilt manifesting by trying not to cast people of color in a villainous roles, or maybe just as a continued trend of studios overlooking actors of color, the result is the same: the exclusion of respectful representation for people of color in the mainstream media.

Back in 1967, Gene Roddenberry gave the world his portrayal of the perfect ubermensch, and that man was Ricardo Montalban. If he could do give us some proper diverse casting at the height of American racial warfare, what’s stopping us now?

I think we can all say we were looking forward to this one. A lot. We tried not to; we really tried to stay wary of all summer blockbusters, but I think deep down we knew this would be fan-fucking-tastic. Nolan never flops, right? Well yes and no.

All of the Batman films in the Nolanverse have a tone reflecting the villain of the film. Psychological and demented for Begins; calculating and cunning for The Dark Knight; and brutal and physical for Rises. This works for and against the film itself. While we see gorgeous cinematography and visceral performances by the entire cast, the movie itself was bogged down by plot holes and an overwritten script.
The film moves pretty smoothly for a 2 hour and 45 minute film, but the overall pacing of the film felt too clunky; it overwhelmed itself with the wrong aspects of the plot. The overly ambitious story made it too busy to build to a true climax. Reflecting the difference in villains, it doesn’t quite maintain the controlled chaos executed so well in The Dark Knight. The action is kind of everywhere, but also kind of nowhere.
Here’s the weird thing: The movie has this huge anti-occupy/anti-communist feel to it. While we get that Nolan has no stake in these and wasn’t trying to use Rises to discuss any of these politics, it’s hard to ignore some of the imagery that drips with relevance to the last year.

All in all, it seems a little careless to raise such burning questions and not give it the respect it deserves.
Watching the film, we had a good time. Anne Hathaway and Tom Hardy both capture and redefine the original comic book villains. Hathaway oozes with sensuality, and her minute mannerisms demonstrates the crafty mind and agile body of Catwoman. On the other end of the spectrum, Tom Hardy gives a brute and physical performance to an otherwise one-note character.

Nolan is no slouch with the camera as well, capturing the melancholy of Gotham as a majestic city landscape of haunting beauty. The action sequences were also memorable; Bane and Batman face-off in a gritty and carnal scene which is reminiscent of a boxer in a bout way past his prime.

Will you see Rises? Yes. Will you have a good time in the theater? Probably. Does it bring a satisfying conclusion? Sure. But it is nowhere near the magnum opus we were expecting from Christopher Nolan.