[gabriel666smith]

I’d agree, but would argue that Nolan has a unique (almost Delphic) talent - for better or worse - amongst contemporary Hollywood directors for capturing and reflecting contemporary and near-future textures and preoccupations, and this alone makes his work more interesting, and worthy of critical attention, than your comment seems to imply if I have interpreted it correctly.

I think that’s just as true of his lesser films (Tenet capturing COVID’s barely comprehensible, antiseptic-psychedelic temporality, for example) as in his stronger work, and makes him - to me, at least - a very interesting artist within the Hollywood structure.

[runarberg]

> Nolan has a unique talent [...] amongst contemporary Hollywood directors for capturing and reflecting contemporary and near-future textures and preoccupations.

Just to be clear. This is the same director who interpreted Occupy Wall Street as Batman’s Bane.

I don‘t dispute his talent, but this talent of his speaks to conservative, pro-establishment, values. If you don‘t share his conservative values, it is very easy to see how his interpretations are at complete odds with contemporary textures and preoccupations.

[gabriel666smith]

My personal politics are very economically leftist - I’m closest to a Luxemburgist.

I find this (Nolan as conservative; Bane as Occupy) interpretation a bit tired, to be honest. It’s often repeated but I think it has aged badly.

Bane has ‘Occupy Wall Street’ elements for sure. But he’s also a strongman - visually, he’s a steroid populist. He doesn’t look like an Occupy guy at all. He looks like he should be on Rogan talking about MMA.

Isn’t the much more apt reading of the image in 2026 - ignoring Nolan’s intention, for a moment - that Bane is the face of what happens when the institutional mistrust of the Occupy movement (a trait that is not specifically left wing or right wing) goes ignored, festers, and musters behind basically whoever is loudest?

Bane is even pitted against an explicitly deep state-like surveillance apparatus run by Batman-as-Palantir.

It feels much more prescient to me of Trumpian chaos-populism (whose efficacy lies in its absorption of traditionally leftist sentiments and demographics) than it has been given credit for.

Neither Batman nor Bane (nor the failing state) is shown as good or ideal by Nolan, and Nolan doesn’t speak about his personal politics. Oppenheimer was about how observation and time changes interpretation - specifically the meaning of an individual’s politics when they are observed.

I guess you could argue that refusing to state a position renders you de-facto conservative, as it implies satisfaction with the status quo - but maybe Nolan is simply requesting more nuance from the observers of his work than interpreting it based on the author’s politics would allow.