For anyone who didn't watch it, this will contain spoilers. Also, I am not here to have a discussion. It's been out for over a month, so I think it's safe to ask this now. Having seen The Dark Knight Rises--twice--I can see where the movie holds man as a heroic being with a volition of his own. Bruce Wayne is the principled capitalist whose unbreakable integrity leads him to success and victory. The villain, Bane, is a flat out socialist, and would fit in perfectly with all the other Randian villains. However, I noticed that all of the other characters weren't really characters so much as they were symbols of what a person could be. Anne Hathaway plays Catwoman, who is a socialist in the beginning but converts, in a sense, to Bruce Wayne's principles--and this is significant because she chose to--proving we have free will. Is this Romanticism that came from a Hollywood film, or is it something else?
This question hasn't generated much interest since it was originally posted two weeks ago, perhaps due to lack of readers' familiarity with this particular movie and/or lack of familiarity with Romanticism in literature. I still haven't seen the movie myself but would be more interested in doing so if it really does measure up to the description offered in the question.
The question explicitly states: "I am not here to have a discussion." But if there is any confusion about the nature of Romanticism, a discussion of it could be of great value to others. The elements of Romanticism listed in the question include:
On the other hand, I also wonder to what degree the movie presents "action for action's sake, unrelated to moral values" (quoting from Ayn Rand), i.e., unrelated to the characters' rational faculties and their relationships to reason. In literary Romanticism (at its best), the central action of the story is human action, and all human action is purposively goal-directed, never accidental. And human action is value-driven, with values chosen by means of reason or in consciously chosen defiance of it. It is reason that is the essence of volition (in the choice to use it or not), and reason has a lot to say about values and the actions proceeding from (and reflected by) man's values (Kant notwithstanding). Superfluous human action in a literary work clashes sharply with any attempt to project reason as man's basic means of cognition, valuing, and acting. (Kant would say that reason and logic may be valid in the physical sciences and technology, but not in regard to values. Refer to the topic of "Kant, Immanuel," in The Ayn Rand Lexicon.)
Ayn Rand also points out that Romanticism in literature died out long ago:
With the resurgence of mysticism and collectivism, in the later part of the nineteenth century, the Romantic novel and the Romantic movement vanished gradually from the cultural scene.
(Quoted from the topic of "Romanticism" in The Ayn Rand Lexicon. The earlier reference to "action for action's sake" is also taken from that collection.)
If "The Dark Knight Rises" truly is a rebirth of literary Romanticism in any fundamental way, I would certainly be more highly motivated to go see it.
It should be emphasized that Romanticism is not concerned with any particular theory of politics or ethics. One need not be a capitalist or moral individualist in order to be a Romanticized character. Romanticism concerns the relationship, for good or evil, between man's rational faculty, the values he chooses, and the actions by which he strives to gain and/or keep his values.
On the other hand, individualism is inherently more amenable to Romanticized concretization than is altruism. As Ayn Rand explains in one of the Lexicon excerpts in the topic of "Romanticism":
The archenemy and destroyer of Romanticism was the atruist morality.... With altruism as the criterion of value and virtue, it is impossible to create an image of man at his best -- "as he might be and ought to be." The major flaw that runs through the history of Romantic literature is the failure to present a convincing hero, i.e., a convincing image of a virtuous man.