Well, since I utterly reject any interpretation of the Nolan trilogy as a meditation on the inequity of the social classes, it may take me a bit to unwind your confusion. That Bruce Wayne is a mega-millionaire is beside the point. The thesis that Ra's Al Ghul, The Joker, and Thalia Al Ghul have is that human beings are basically no good. Regardless of our social status, if it came right down to a decision to save your own life or save someone else's, we would basically screw over the other person.

Gotham City is, for the villians of the piece, the ultimate description of how degraded we have become as a society, where corruption and vice have compromised integrity and honesty. The true power in the city is the cesspool of organized crime and human life is worthless. And, for young Bruce Wayne, it is and, in Batman Begins, he sets out to take his revenge on the criminal that killed his mother and father by committing an act of murder. Then he finds out that, instead of a petty criminal act, his parents were instead the object of a hit perpetrated by a powerful organized crime family, he is in the ideal mind set to embrace Ra's Al Ghul's world view - that humanity is not worth saving - that we are, at heart, evil and vicious and the best thing to do is erase the vast majority of people off the face of the planet and begin again - and they plan to start with Gotham City. By the end, though, Batman has decided to reject this world view and fight against the world view embraced by Ra's and his followers.

In The Dark Knight returns, that thesis is brought into impeccable clarity with the battle between the anarchic Joker, who is desparate to prove that all human beings are basically crap. Batman and, to an even greater extent, Harvey Dent, represent our better sides, taking a stand against crime and our venal nature, etc, etc. In a lot of ways, The Joker proves his thesis as he uses various methods of influence to force police officers to betray good people and to cause the death of one of the central figures of the movie that represents the best that humanity can be. At the end, the arguments between the Joker and the Batman, who has come to believe in the essential goodness of Gotham City, reach a stalemate. Although the Joker's grand proof fails - ordinary citizens do not decide to blow up the boat of criminals in order to save themselves, the Joker has managed to pervert the "white knight" of order and decency in Gotham, Harvey Dent, into a misshapen murderer. In order to save the gains they have made, Jim Gordon and Bruce Wayne decide to perpetuate the myth that Harvey Dent was never converted to the other side. Dent would become the symbol under which Gotham City will be able to purge itself of its dominant criminal elements. But that symbol is a lie.

The Dark Knight Rises opens with the Harvey Dent myth being used as a lever to pass all sorts of laws and viciously enforce those laws to purge Gotham of organized crime almost completely. (Though, in doing so, did the police suddenly feel empowered to use similar methods and justify it in their fealty to the mantra "I Believe in Harvey Dent!" But Wayne and Gordon believe that those gains have only come about because they have perpetuated a lie - made a sacrificial Christ-like symbol of Dent in order to enable them to clean up Gotham. But, the central idea has not been unproven? Could Gotham have saved itself, could ordinary people and, especially, those thousands who are symbols of law and order - the police - manage to be the good people they are at heart. OR, has Gotham merely being guilted into being good through the veneration - or worship, maybe? - of a false idol? Ra's Al Ghul's sect is not convinced - they are still of the same mind set that humanity is basically not good - that it is nothing less than a puppet police state and, for the few months that they rise to power, they set up a perverse parody of what we call civilization and justice. If Gotham is to save itself this time, it must rely on itself. Everyone must respond to the call of their better selves. That's why I found it pleasing that Batman figured less in this one than the others and that he marched among the police and not at the head of them. This time, everyone responds to the call to save themselves and thay all essentially become a Batman.
It's not a perfect society in the end - we are still bound up by the fetters of bureaucracy and misplaced authority, so that the army officer blindly follows orders and fires on children (not just children, mind you, Orphans!! and they blow up their only escape route!!! Bad army officer who blindly follows orders without question.) - it's a world that prevents good men from acting according to their basic good natures. "Robin" discovers that he must take up Batman's mantle, because Bats cannot physically keep this crap up, to undercut the bureaucracy and act when the paper waggers say not too, because it might be bad publicity, etc.

So, there you go.

Interesting ideas BJ, so it is essentially anti-Randian?

That's what I like about these films, there are so many ways to slice them! To give a more complete critique, I really need to watch them all again and back-to-back.

Sure it's cynical of Bane, but it's also cynical of the filmmakers. I definitely have no quibble with saying "populist movements are vulnerable to co-optation by murderous psychopaths." That's just another way of saying that there's risk involved in building a protest movement. Of course there is. But sadly there is also risk involved in not building one. There is also risk in going to see a commercial blockbuster about a billionaire philanthropist who joins an army of uniformed police to "take back Gotham" and then giving it a pass as mere innocent entertainment with little particular ideological perspective.

But I've already indulged myself too much in political chat here. Like I said, it's not just the ideological slant that grates on me -- I could not respect the second film more as a work of art -- but in this case, what felt like cartoony execution in the third act. I just couldn't be emotionally swept up in it, so of course I was going to sit there picking it apart like a grumpy old lefty.

Wow, it's been a long time since I have posted here.

I think that part of the reason why many people find the "message" of the film confusing is because it's far more complicated and messy (in a realistic sense) than people keep thinking it is.

Bane's rhetoric, while it is compared to the OWS protestors, is really much more at home with the Bolshevicks or the French Revolution. He and Talia aren't supposed to be mirroring contemporary politics so much as they are using the time-tested methods of those who wish to achieve ends through guerilla violence, and this seemed pretty clear to me when watching the film. They are manipulating it cynically, yes, but they are doing so in a way that is thoroughly in keeping with what we saw of the League of Shadows in the first film. I think that part of the confusion regarding their role comes from people trying to make them into an allegory for current events when they are simply supposed to be exploiting the violent tendencies of many revolutionary movements throughout western history. Hell, the opening of Blackgate Prison was pretty clearly inspired by the Storming of the Bastille, and not anything in current culture.

Similarly, while the Police managed to use Harvey Dent as a symbol to clean up the streets, and as a result make the city safer, they did so though a lie, which gave Bane even more leverage to yank at the system. It also ate them up and continued to corrupt them, though in a way that was less visible than the openly corrupt police force from Batman Begins.

So, in the end, if the film can be said to have any message, it seems to be that the world isn't black-and-white, that the wealthy and the poor alike are open to corruption, and that political ideologies often blind people to the realities of the world around - whether those ideologies are right-wing or left-wing.

Indeed it has. So permit me to be the first to suggest that you stick around, and do so a trifle more often. People have missed you, you know.

My last job ate my life, pulling me away from many old hobbies and interests.

Luckily, I have a new job with co-workers and a boss who encourage me to get out more often. However, I also have a baby on the way in the next few weeks, so my life might get eaten again.

But thank you, El Santo, it is good to be greeted again.

Yes, Slug. With the baby, it may yet be some time til we hear from you again, but I hope not.

Good to see you back, Sluggo!

Thank you, Marlowe...hopefully I'll be able to continue to be back.