The Underground Movement in support for The Dark Knight Rises that exposes negative attitudes towards the critics that are to guide moviegoers

Whatever you say about critics they cannot influence the course of history unless they are prepared to change it from a materialist basis. Speaking negative or positive things about something does not guarantee success or failure of a particular enterprise it is how you are prepared to physically make a difference to that enterprise. It is clear that most critics, particularly those labeled as the so called top critics, cannot make a film. There have been cases where the idealist relinquishes his high handed idealism and goes about effecting a material change based on his ideals. As an idealist his views are not worth anything particularly as the tide of history sweeps him under the rug. You can only be an idealist unless you are prepared to make a change based on the material circumstances that surround you. You do not pronounce judgment because you subjectively dislike something. There are some film critics in America that have assumed the position of the 1% in the film industry and seem incongruous and so incapable of change. The venom dished out against The Dark Knight Rises (2012) by some critics seems highly biased from a classist perspective. They hail the ambition but trounce its shortcomings as a convoluted film and, most importantly, that it does not reach the standards set by The Dark Knight (2008). The point of this commentary is to highlight an issue that I have addressed only briefly before: The Hollywood industry is elitist and some of those labeled as top critics are vulgar propagandists.  You can check the many statements I make in my blog posts stating that the claim of some of these critics to be the representatives of moviegoers is bogus hypocrisy. It only serves to get them to the front of the line and then they turn around and trounce the film to gain some prestige in the Academy of Arts and Sciences. I refer to some of these critics as so called top critics most of the time. See my review of The Artist (2011). In some cases for you to come to the fore you have to trash a movie to get in the spotlight or  conversely you celebrate the film thoroughly and enhance your reputation with a particular studio or director.

If you read any of my critiques you will see suggestions abound for I don’t trash films for trashing sakes. I am not saying that one is not entitled to their subjective opinions but when the reviews are blatantly biased it becomes obvious particularly if the review itself is not logical or is convoluted and riddled with high emotion. In this case the fans of The Dark Knight Rises are justified in their responses. I am not referring to the death threats. Most of the negative reviews have not provided a substantial analysis of the film and its themes which would make the reviews much more comprehensive. In most cases they are short and vitriolic which is similar in fashion to a mere comment. Unless a comprehensive logical review is done the readers will not be satisfied and you will be exposed as a so called professional film critic. You are being paid to guide moviegoers and the most you can do is poison them with your high strung emotionalism that masquerades as logic. If you read some of the negative reviews they are well written but are completely faulty from a logical standpoint. As a student of the dialectic philosophy a lot of these top critics sound like buffoons. These negative reviews do not make suggestions or give some insight as to the direction the film might have taken especially if it is so bad. When it is universally clear that a film is bad what should be done  by the critic is a clear assessment based on their knowledge of film as to how it could have been improved. You do not trash a film and offer no suitable alternative or you will be accused of encouraging emotionalism. The only alternative these high minded critics are offering is that The Dark Knight Rises is not at the level of The Dark Knight; that is an abominable form of criticism. You should note that they don’t say the film borrows heavily from The Dark Knight (2008) but that it does not raise the bar any higher.  

The criticism is foolish for they have disregarded the context within which the film was made. The film is a trilogy it is not an independent batman film or a new spin off.  This film is merely continuing the story of batman that comprises three films. This is the cardinal sin of some of these critics. The foolishness they imbue in their followers is that The Dark Knight Rises is not at the level of its predecessors as if it is a separate film. These critics should be assessing the trilogy as a whole and question whether or not the trilogy is wound up accurately. The avid followers of the dark knight would do well to read some of the reviews that are not entirely favourable but acknowledge that the story of batman is wound up in a satisfactory fashion thereby emphasizing the strength of the series as opposed to one particular film in the franchise. Those are the best critiques; fans should not be reading the reviews that simply claim that the final chapter never met the high standards of its predecessor or that Bane is no Joker. Is the trilogy wound up sufficiently? That is the only question that fans such as myself will be prepared to answer.  If they assess the film on these grounds they are denying the reader a satisfactory analysis of the current film itself. They give the impression that this is an entirely new interpretation of batman on film; the film should be assessed within the context of the trilogy.

I have not watched the film but I can address the issue of comparing the film to The Dark Knight. It is testament to Nolan’s vision that he attempted to advance beyond the shadow of The Dark Knight and thereby offer some closure to the series. What is being said about the scale of the action all boils down to one of the main themes of the trilogy: escalation. In Batman Begins (2005) Lieutenant Gordon warned Batman at the end that this element of escalation would be the result of his actions. The criminals would seek to adapt to the force of change that batman represented. In order to emphasize his point he shows Batman the card of the joker left behind at  a crime scene  as his moniker. The Joker came along in the The Dark Knight and fulfilled the prophecy of escalation. The Joker was a sensationalist that promised a lot in terms of revolutionary change, particularly after he defeats the mob, but resorted to mere social experiments. The joker was therefore limited and never approached the scale of destruction envisioned by Ra’s Al Ghul and now Bane. The joker never seemed to be able to go so far as attempting wide scale destruction, he only promised it and was unable to deliver. He seemed to be more interested in his celebrity cult where he brandishes his signature cards all over the place and broadcasts himself through television. The Joker and the Batman represent the dark side of the celebrity cult. This is why people are so in love with the Joker since he represented outright sensationalism although he never took it to the next level of Ra’s or Bane: Citywide destruction. The batman sometimes masquerades as a hero when in fact he is a brutal enforcer and Nolan acknowledges this masterfully by the end where Batman gives up his celebrity status for a more heroic gesture by sacrificing himself for the crimes of Harvey Dent, the warped idealist.  In The Dark Knight Rises we have Bane and from what I have seen he is remorseless and not prone to sensationalism as the Joker was in the previous film. He has a plan geared towards outright destruction and so where the joker would taunt Bane actually delivers. The Joker represents a brand name whereas Bane represents a brand crusher which is why he humiliates the Batman physically. Try and recall that Batman himself is a brand name like the Joker. It is clear therefore that were Bane to encounter the Joker he would not hesitate to pound him into the earth. The power embedded in his physique would not see the Joker laughing off the hits as he did with batman. We would watch the thorough humiliation of the Joker as I am sure people have witnessed the humiliation of Batman. It is a point I have raised in the past although not in my blog posts that had Ra’s al Ghul encountered a character like the joker he would kill him instantly. He would not entertain pleasantries like the Batman which is a result of his compassionate nature. ‘Compassion is a weakness your enemies will not share,’ says Ra’s in Batman Begins. If Batman was as ruthless as Ra’s or Bane the Joker would have been a minor villain regardless of the great performance of Heath Ledger known for its sensationalism. 

It is this sensationalism that has stuck with audiences and so confusion set in where it was stated that The Dark Knight could not be topped. Regardless of what you say Nolan had to resolve the precarious batman mythos because Batman is at heart or by tradition a hero. He cannot be known as a criminal because batman is an ideal supposedly representing good hence this new film. Batman after his encounter with the joker fell into a dark patch and he must be rescued from the ashes. Bane is a perfect counterpoint to the Joker in that he does not hesitate to put his plans into operation. His mind is more fixed and resolute as opposed to a man like the Joker who says ‘I’m like a dog chasing cars. I wouldn’t know what to do with one if I actually caught it.’ Bane is more threatening as opposed to the Joker that merely dangled the carrot. The case in point is that people should get over the Joker and lay Heath Ledger to rest. He did a fantastic, sensationalistic job in his performance but the reality is that the Joker was essentially limited in his scope. It is time to move on and it is clear that the plan for citywide destruction is more direct and this is what is required to drive the point of escalation home. These so called critics must stop comparing The Dark Knight Rises to The Dark Knight because it is one story. The Dark Knight represented a highpoint because of the Joker’s nihilism that threatened to disrupt Gotham significantly but never did actually because of the sacrifice by the batman (it was the joker that convinced Harvey Dent to act foolish). Bane is not into guessing games based on what I have seen he is more direct and he is a brand crusher. Those people who do not give into sensationalism are usually more direct. The idea of sensationalism has been heralded to the point of frenzy in the West where celebrities are trumpeted as godlike individuals. The Joker and the Batman bought into this concept whereas Bane does not. As Ra’s tells Bruce ‘You’re defending a city so corrupt that we’ve infiltrated every level of its infrastructure.’ Bane attempts to crush the brand of the batman and then crush what Gotham is supposed to represent greed, filth and rampant exploitation of the working class. All great cities of the world share this history of exploitation and this exploitation is inevitable based on the concept of a ruling class and those that serve them. This comparison with The Dark Knight is untenable particularly because it did not end on a decisive note and people should lay Heath ledger to rest and stop buying into elitist perceptions. What I mean here is that as a result of the success of The Dark Knight  some  people just imagined that it should be left where it was despite the fact that batman retired as a criminal. Nolan had to rescue him because it was inevitable. It still remains the same story however and so if you prefer The Dark Knight go and watch it again and again without demonstrating any interest in how the series will be resolved. People recall The Dark Knight primarily because of The Joker and nothing is wrong but it was not a much better film than Batman Begins which has the same tone of The Dark Knight apart from the menace of the clown in the latter and the more shady texture of the former. This ceaseless comparison with The Dark Knight does not make sense within the context of the trilogy. It is a thing with elites where they tend to get stuck in the past and then become romantic to the point of lunacy. The bar was set with Batman Begins and not The Dark Knight. The latter only expanded the themes of the former. If you find flaws in this film you will find these same flaws in the first two whether you like it or not. This is made more apparent because this new film is larger in scale and the larger the film the more it becomes exposed. The first two were pretty small based when compared to what is being advertized for the final chapter of the trilogy.

                Lastly the poor critiques of those critics that gave negative reviews have exposed their fallibility especially as they claim to be professionals. I am speaking about the venom dousing present in some of the critiques that have no rational basis. The fans that have dared to challenge the 1% of the film industry have exposed one glaring fact: these said critics are not consistent. A critic that chastised  The Dark Knight Rises will give into the celebrity cult of Kate Perry or male strippers in Magic Mike or surprisingly the less than definitive  The Amazing Spider-Man. Most of these critics do not have a clear method of analysis that should be a clear feature of someone’s writing particularly if he or she claims to be original. Some of these critics are consistent for the wrong reason. REX REED is one of the worst film reviewers I have ever encountered. The analysis is poor generally and this is disguised by his acerbic wit. This is a reviewer who gets attention by giving bad reviews. He is consistent in his dislike for the Nolan trilogy and for that I commend him and so it is no surprise to see him dislike the latest offering. The other critics would praise the first two of the trilogy and then trounce this one because in their grand romantic estimation it does not set a high bar.  That is all romantic drivel; it either concludes the trilogy in a satisfactory fashion or it does not. Nolan has been consistent in his approach to filmmaking and he never veered like Sam Raimi in Spider-Man 3. This has made him into a visionary filmmaker as opposed to those filmmakers that act cowardly and weak as soon as a critic passes judgment. If you have a vision see it through and know when to put the brakes once it’s finished or when the vision cannot possibly continue on the path it’s on. These same critics will inflate unoriginal films with praise and push their own agenda although it hardly makes an impact on the film’s box office success. Look at the prestigious acclaim given to The Artist (2011) yet it only catered to those with elitist, romantic views. It goes without saying that The Artist will be forgotten in a couple years time simply because it was hardly original. One must also bear in mind that a lot these critics are reactionary, blatant conservatives that cannot identify change and who clearly represent the 1% in Hollywood. Thank god Nolan is an outsider. The artsy films that the critics inflate with praise are not always justified because these films are formulaic and do not advance film but for some of the dunderheaded critics once you act like they taught you in drama school etc and abstract appropriately then you will be rewarded by being excessively praised never mind that you’re not pushing the envelope. These artsy films conform to type and are excessively praised. It is only the films that push the envelope that will survive for the future. Nolan has done this with his Batman trilogy whether or not The Dark Knight Rises does not miraculously produce a Joker phenomenon to give the series another push into fantastical sensationalism which is not always as concrete as the vision of the creators.

In some cases the fans are justified in voicing their outrage apart from the death threats. These critics do have an agenda and they are political whether they like it or not especially as a lot of them represent the 1% in Hollywood that enjoys the privileges that we lowly attendees cannot hope to enjoy. The outrage voiced by the underground has highlighted that critics are not necessarily the ones who will determine whether or not a film is a success. This is not 1950 it is 2012. When I watch the film for myself I will take the usual objective logical approach to my reviews which may be biased in its own way but at least I am consistent in using my own criterion for assessing something. My criterion is to look for films that are seeking to keep the film industry alive. The people on the ground level (99%) are more aware of what is coming than the 1% and that is the truth Ruth.

One critic made the important point that Nolan is aware that the fanbase for the batman trilogy is in the 99%.