Batman: Dark Knight Rises – Esoteric Analysis

Note the class warfare element of the poster. Very Ayn Randian.

By: Jay

False Flag shooting event analysis broken here first.

-Spoiler Alert-

Update: The blending of fiction and programming has extended into reality like I predicted, with the New York Police Commissioner (like Commissioner Gordon) saying the villain was “The Joker,” and the NYPD will keep everyone safe from “The Joker” and/or Bane. 

_______________________________

“Bruce Wayne’s grandfather founded Skull & Bones.” -Batman tv show

Batman: The Dark Knight Rises is the final installment in the Christopher Nolan trilogy and, in my opinion, is excellent.  Like the previous two, the concluding film is just as esoteric and filled with predictive programming as the others, yet stands out as preeminent.  This final film is the climax of this version of revelation of the method par excellance.  The entire essence of this film is concerned with how the system itself operates on the deepest levels—levels far beyond what most people are able to comprehend.  Like the rest of Nolan’s films, this one resonates with a particular Jungian ethos, almost to the level of Inception. In fact, Dark Knight Rises is very similar to Nolan’s Inception, and, believe it or not, Jim Henson’s Labyrinth

In fact, Nolan even takes Dark Knight to the higher esoteric level of including actors from previous films and roles to play them again in this film.  As I myself and Ross have discussed on Jay’s Analysis, this often turns out to be the case, especially in the case of the top Hollywood figures—figures like Angelina Jolie, Nicole Kidman, and now, it seems, Rachel Weisz.  Among males you can see it with Robert DeNiro Nicolas Cage, Johnny Depp and Tom Cruise.  Granted, some roles are chosen on the basis of having a certain “look” adapted from another role, but as I argue, and as we see in films like Mulholland Drive, roles are often chosen for deeper, occult reasons.  Think about Heath Ledger in Batman: The Dark Knight, and then his role in The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus and then his strange death. 

What?” you say, “Why, that’s wacky.”  That’s because your view of the world isn’t the same as those who understand liturgy and ritual.  The study of liturgics is not some dry, dusty, arcane academic discipline for old religionists to haggle about.  Liturgics to those who know, is the very heartbeat of the universe itself.  It is itself the meaning of things.  Granted, one can learn about metaphysics or science in philosophy or at some university, yet these are merely fields that operate in the realm of bare knowledge.  Knowledge itself is lacking in that it is static and merely one of the divine energeia.

All the bad guys rolled into one.

To combine will and action in harmony with intended purpose in the service of God in symbolic act is meaning, and thus all of life becomes a liturgical ritual.  Most ancient religious traditions have some notion of this.  Thus the standard exposition most “conspiracy theorists” and/or critics give is done at the most basic level of plot, interpretation of meaning, technical achievements, and possible “Illuminist” symbols.  While there is a place for all of that, none of them understand the principle of the film itself, including the actors and their own experiences, the set, the script, etc., all coming together at a certain time, with a certain zeitgeist behind it. A couple good books on this I would recommend would be Mircea Eliade’s The Sacred and the Profane, Abraham Heschel’s The Sabbath, and any basic introduction to liturgy.   Such a radical alteration of perception is only achieved by investigation into, and participation in, liturgy.  Those who have experienced this will understand, and those who haven’t will not.  But regardless, films are themselves a kind of ritual ‘working,’ and whether the 99% of the critics out there acknowledge or know this is irrelevant: it is true.

“Baroness, why do I feel like Cobra Commander is wearing a Bane mask and once again ripping off my style and screwing us over?”

In fact, as I write this, it has just happened that several people have been killed in a Dark Knight Rises premier in Colorado.  Readers of this blog will be aware of Colorado being outlined in other films and in reality as a new, more secretive command base for various elite factions.  Think of the Denver Airport and the Columbine events.  The RT article states:


“Police say that the assailant initially opened a gas canister. Witnesses recounted hearing a hissing sound and smoke, and then the shooting started.

Some say that when they first heard the gunfire, they thought it was some new type of special effect.

It was chaotic, it was surreal, it was like in a movie,” one of the witnesses told 9news Denver TV station. Read more of this post

Alex Jones’ Batman/Dark Knight Analysis Based on Mine

Another hat tip, it appears.  Four years ago, Jones had me on, and we discussed Batman Begins, and the first half of his analysis reads like mine, here.

8 Examples of Unusually, Overly Specific Typecasting in Hollywood Movies

"I, ugh, I ugh, I'm I'm stroking my chin now, right now, as a proper Jeff Goldblum should do, and I, I, I, um, am about to tell you some, some, um, disturbing FUBAR event that we will marginally escape..."

By: Peter Parker

Most movie goers are familiar with the phenomenon of typecasting, where a certain actor, be it by his or her own efforts or by the capricious whims of some Hollywood Executive, ends up playing the same basic role over and over again. Examples include John Wayne’s myriad performances as Cowboys, Arnold Schwarzenegger’s frequent portrayal of guys who’ll “be back” and Shia Labeouf’s endless depictions of people I want to repeatedly punch in the face. However, what has gone largely unnoticed by folks with so-called “real lives” is what I have labeled “U.O.S.T.” or Unusually Overly Specific Typecasting. U.O.S.T is often so bizarre that it seems more like some wonky Synchro-Mystic reincarnation across an actor’s career history rather than a reflection of the utter unoriginality of Hollywood casting directors but perhaps we should just let the examples of it speak for themselves.

Mary Steenburgen: The Girlfriend, Turned Wife of Guys Who Travel Between the Late 19th and Late 20th Centuries.

Other than playing Bride of Frankenstein to giant foreheaded hubby Ted Danson, Mary Steenburgen is probably best known for playing the part of Clara Clayton, a schoolmarm romanced by nutty scientists Emmett “Doc” Brown, when he travels back to the year 1885 in the third Back to the Future movie. After contemplating destroying his time machine on the grounds that it might fuck shit up on a galactic scale, Doc eventually says “screw the laws of causality,” marries Clara and returns with her to his own era.

"We named our kids Jules & Verne, so basically, we’re one of those annoying yuppie couples that makes you wanna barf! But at least, be thankful we didn’t pull a Will & Jada Smith & call em Clemet & Emra."

What’s less remembered, however, is Mary played almost this exact same part ten years earlier, with only one slight inversion. In the 1979 film Time After Time, Mary plays Amy Robbins a late 20th century woman who is romanced by a time traveler from the year 1893, specifically the pimp-daddy of time travel himself, H.G Wells, who came through time to pursue none other than Jack the Ripper. After saving Amy from “Saucy Jack” Wells decides he must return to his own time and destroy the machine. Proving the old adage “time machines are the ultimate pussy wagons,” Amy begs Wells to take her with him. They return to 1893 with the ending credits telling us that they later married.

Hell, both movies even feature scenes where Mary gets all pissy when her respective beaus, reveal that they are time travelers. Apparently, she believes “I’m a time traveling scientists” to be a sleazy con to get up under her hoop skirt and as we’ve already established, it’s definitely an angle that works!

Speaking of perfectly executed segues; our next example of U.O.S.T also involves another actress from Back to the Future.

Maybe this movie traveled through time to become “Back to the Future 3.”

Lea Thompson: Young Women in Sci-Fi Related, Deeply Disturbing, Sexual Relationships.

If you weren’t creeped out by the Steenburgen/Danson pairing, then this next segment probably won’t phase you one bit, however if your disturbo-threshold is that of a normal human, prepare to go “eeww!”

The lovely Lea Thompson has twice played parts that combine sci-fi and totally wrong sexual relationships. Many of us remember, mostly in therapy sessions, the scene in Back to the Future where Lea plays 1950s chick Lorrain Baines, who through the miracle of time travel, tries to get it on with her own son, Marty.

Hell, both movies even feature scenes where Mary gets all pissy when her respective beaus, reveal that they are time travelers. Apparently, she believes “I’m a time traveling scientists” to be a sleazy con to get up under her hoop skirt and as we’ve already established, it’s definitely an angle that works! Read more of this post

Batman Begins – Esoteric Analysis

Batman becomes the dark side.

By: Jay

See Also: Batman: The Dark Knight Rises – Esoteric Analysis

Batman Begins marks a substantive renewal for the popular franchise. Taking the story in a much more serious direction from the 90s version (replete with Prince flopping around, humping the ground), the new version is much more sophisticated. And, along with being much more sophisticated, it also calls for an esoteric analysis. Just as with Christopher Nolan’s Inception I analyzed, so his earlier Batman Begins was modeled along the same lines of Jungian psychoanalysis, mixed with occult and gnostic themes, as well as other prevalent popular conspiracy theories and secret societies, as we will see.

The film begins with Bruce Wayne experiencing childhood trauma where he falls down a well, breaks his leg, and is terrified by a sudden battalion of bats. Falling down wells and trips to the underworld are common in Jungian, gnostic and literary exploits. It’s an archetypal scheme for both the inner subconscious, as well as the exterior metaphysical realm of the dead. The “underworld” of Homer and Virgil, is also, by association the subconscious from which our dreams arise, manifesting archetypal patterns. Bruce Wayne’s falling down the well is also a window into his unconscious mind, just as are the several layers of dreams in Cobb’s subconscious in Inception.

Childhood traumas and fixations are often formed from this stage in development, as both Freud and Jung noted, and this is precisely where Bruce Wayne experiences the defining moment of his future existence—he will eventually become the thing he fears—the dark and the demonic. Now that may sound strange, given that Batman is a good guy, and the Joker and others villains, but once one understands the pagan and gnostic scheme of reality, these words end up purely relative denominators. “Good” as an actual, absolute category is non-existent in this relativistic scheme. This is why Bruce Wayne’s journey will be to become his “higher self,” the alter ego “Batman.” Batman is the embodiment of Bruce Wayne’s “shade” or shadow self, his dark side incarnate.

Batman is not bound by laws, but is instead a Nietzschian vigilante overman, beyond good and evil: rex lex. Since the normative social structure of Gotham City is corrupt, Batman is a law unto himself. This is why Bruce is the billionaire capitalist: he is the representation of elite capital, but which also provides Gotham its vast social programs and welfare system, as well as public transportation, etc. This is yet another hint at the actual system that runs the real world—it is controlled by those at the top who are neither capitalist nor socialist. They are elitist, and who (in their minds) transcend dialectics. The Cold War, for example, was a closely steered conflict that allowed a vast intelligence and surveillance grid to be established under the auspices of nuclear threat. Now, our threats are repackaged as environmentalism and the “global war on terror.” Bruce Wayne thus embodies the “third way” which is where we are headed—a global corporate financial system that is the synthesis of communism and capitalism, under the guise of world “democracy.”

Read more of this post

Batman and the Joker as the Apollo/Dionysius Archetypes

The Apollonian/Dionysian Dialectical Dichotomy

Contributing writer David Shankle gives yet another angle on Batman: Dark Knight 

 
After revisiting Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight, viewing the juxtaposition between Batman and The Joker in a Nietzschean context made a lot more sense.

Nietzsche, in The Birth of Tragedy, used the Apollonian/Dionysian dichotomy from Ancient Greece to explain the constant struggle between Apollo’s order (law, beauty, reason) and Dionysos’ chaos (hedonistic appetites, drunkenness, sexual urges, primal instinct). The light side and the dark side. Thus, as this reasoning goes, to totally repress the darkness would be to remain ignorant, and thus misunderstand reality as it as only understood in the Apollonian context. So Nietzsche proposed that these two elements were not opposing, but rather complementary.

Batman, the Dark Knight, represents Apollo. He operates on vitruous principles and seeks law, order and justice above all things. The Joker represents Dionysos: he seeks chaos and ultimately the disruption of order. He doesn’t value material things. When rewarded with a room-full of money, he dispassionately doused it with gasoline and set it on fire. He is therefore a philosophical villain, viewing the order enforced by Batman as a mere illusion. The Joker intends to show Gotham City that these delusions of order, their “system,” is feeble. This is further highlighted when The Joker talks to Harvey Dent (Two-Face) in the hospital. Read more of this post

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 155 other followers