 |
| "What's with all the skyscrapers on the set of '300'?" |
WARNING: SPOILERS.
I've been thinking about this for a while now, some of it WAY before I saw Zack Snyder's new DC film
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. I don't want to write a review per se, but I feel the need to sift through my thoughts on the film in order to get to the nitty gritty of this particular entry.
For starters, I went in fully aware that this IS a Zack Snyder flick (and, importantly, at least somewhat playing in the sandbox established by Christopher Nolan in the Batflicks). He isn't going to all of a sudden do a 180 degree turn and be Jon Favreau. You should have some idea going in of what you're going to be looking at, if not in specifics, at least in general artistic choices and style. And that's what he should do, make HIS movie, because he was hired for this job, presumably, based on the things he has done before. You know upfront that you will get a lot of loud, abrasive, chest pounding action (with odd intervals of what resembles wrestling theme music inserts), varying degrees of color (lots of brown...dark blue...black) and not a lot of humor, as well as stylized scenery and a slick coolness that perhaps doesn't always lend itself to warm crescendos that send kids happily inspired out into the playgrounds to mimic their heroes (though to be fair,
Legend of the Guardians might come close, and he actually MADE that with kids as the target audience).
Now, lest you think that is fanboy criticism, let me preface this entire blog with one very important point: I could NOT film this script. I would have ZERO idea where to start. In fact, 99.9% of the world's population would not be capable of turning out a cohesive narrative based on a script this ambitious, in terms of both effects and beats, and stuffed with the MILLION things DC needed for what is pretty much a "setup" movie in their fledgling cinematic universe. In short, I couldn't make this film, and neither could you. Unless Guillermo del Toro or Joss Whedon is somehow reading this blog, in which case, you are part of the .1% I referred to before. This movie is, at the very least, EPIC in feel and tone.
That out of the way, let's get on with it...because, look...I have been not only reading comics and books, seeing movies and TV shows according to the ground rules DC has laid out for these characters over the past 40 years or so, but I have presumably gained some insights and a bit of a tuning to my moral compass, at least at the age of 6-17 or 18, over the course of seeing my heroes make decisions based on their held integrity and by virtue of the very reasons WHY they decided to do what they do in the first place. So while I refuse to say things like, "Batman wouldn't act like that!", I do feel qualified to know in my heart if this is a further adventure of the characters I know and love, or just a remix of some familiar themes and people.
The answer, fittingly, is likely somewhere in the middle. As a comic fan, that doesn't delight me. As a movie fan, I can accept it...but I'm still not always thrilled about the results. Most importantly, how does the script (by David Goyer, among others) hold up to its own rules and logic on the DC Universe's own terms, which are partially possibly given invite to scrutiny more than a more "silly" comic book film might by the insistence of DC's head honchos to keep everything realistic?
Hmmm...not necessarily great. But more on that later.
So it was that I was a LITTLE surprised by the opening, which is a really restrained, emotional grounding that a movie like this calls for, but which isn't always given.
I felt stirred by the look back at little Bruce Wayne and his now famous but tragic origin story. It was a great way to incorporate what people who don't know Bats' backstory NEED to know (yes, I assume there are still a few people out there who haven't EVER seen a Batman movie or read a Batman comic) while simultaneously giving us a protagonist to pull for, possibly even some sort of an emotional attachment to. It was extremely effective and low key, right down to the small fade-in of the movie's title, with no blockbuster-y fanfare.
The early scenes of the film also give us a look into why exactly Wayne feels that Supes is a "menace", with the oft overlooked "collateral damage" aspect, of which Marvel REALLY has taken a look at in previous comics and films, it must be mentioned...the Marvels comic by Kurt Busiek and Alex Ross gives a bystander's viewpoint, the Avengers movies cover it (and newspaper Easter eggs on the walls of news offices in the Netflix Daredevil series), and the entire Civil War storyline is actually based on the damage heroes do while doing what heroes do. So it's not COMPLETELY new ground we are on in BvS, but still used less than many comic book tropes.
This sequence, with Wayne racing toward the rubble caused by Supes and his pal Zod in the events of
Man of Steel, got me to thinking immediately of the way I felt when I was a kid watching
Superman 2. Zod and his cronies take over the White House. When it becomes apparent that Superman might not be able to do anything to STOP them from essentially taking over the world, that is as helpless a feeling as I ever wanted to have as a little boy watching a superhero movie.
Again, presumably, that is what the filmmakers wanted to convey with MoS, and the notion was definitely that if Zod and company were not stopped, collateral damage, while important, would be the least of our planet's worries. Surely Bruce Wayne, being an EXTREMELY intelligent man (his detective work in BvS is actually explored here in MUCH more satisfying fashion than in the Nolan films) and someone who after fighting crime in the Gotham streets for decades likely has seen SOME sort of innocent bystander injuries, would be able, with the rest of the world who have come to honor Superman for saving the entire globe, to at least have some semblance of understanding that MUCH of the damage done was out of Big Blue's control. But alas, just as in the dumbed down world of modern politics and the tactics employed by candidates looking to make generalities more abstract, we are torn from the subtlety of any kind of "grey" area by a singular, though harrowing, anecdote from Wayne's personal experience.
But ok, we have to have a reason why Bats will turn suspicious of Supes, so let it ride. I'm in. Plus, the scene with Bruce running to the rescue has a haunting and moving poetry; I admit to tearing up when the little girl points at the building where her mother is. The parallels of a generation who grew up under the shadow of 9/11 are also hard to ignore in that scene, being that we are, in essence, at ground zero of the Superman/Zod aftermath. It's effective. Very much so.
Of a much higher cinematic umbrage is the notion that the ENTIRE plot of this picture hinges on the fact that Batman IGNORE Superman's plea to listen to him. That's right...one single conversation could render Lex Luthor's (sorta stupid, come on) plan useless, and the two extremely intelligent and at least somewhat reasonable men realize that they are being manipulated (over and over) by Luthor. Superman goes fully into the fray completely aware that Lex is manipulating his moral code, for example, and that's troublesome.
Side note: this DID bother the side of me that rooted for Chris Reeve as an engrossed youth; the idea that Superman would knowingly go in for the kill of someone who he knew was at least acting on good intentions, regardless of what was at stake. How many times could Chris have just ripped Luthor Hackman in half? These corners that the writers paint Superman in leave him little choice but to go senselessly into VICIOUS battle. HOWEVER, we are judging this film, at least partially, on the established rules of the modern DC movies, and our new Supes ended the happy and uplifting
Man of Steel by not using his brain, but his brawn. So I can wrestle with whether or not I PERSONALLY approve of the writing all I want, but I have to accept this direction as either the way this new Superman will react in future films, or (PLEASE) the actions of a Superman who has not yet matured into trying to discover a way around the obvious (beating and killing everything he can't immediately figure out a way to stop).
One more QUICK note here...while it may be true that Superman did similar things in the comic books, those were WAY isolated events in the 75+ years of stories written about him, enough to where it would be a JARRING thing for Superman to actually have to kill...Doomsday.
Jumping back to the overview, what it is that really gets under my skin in virtually ALL the DC films (possible exception being
Batman Begins) are what I feel are two HUGE, glaring issues. The first is that the filmmakers seem to be trying to distance themselves from the source material in such a way as to almost be embarrassed of them; this is evidenced by the obvious, in some cases...what the heroes look like and the design of the characters. Less obvious, in others...the refusal to utter the word "Catwoman" even ONCE in
The Dark Knight Rises.
Of course, this is still in line with the consistency of the established rules, so while it may hurt fan feelings, it is what it is. But the second, and again more troubling side for me, is that the villains in these films seem to play the protagonists like fiddles. Luthor in BvS is no different. In fact, in the Nolan Batman trilogy, Batman really doesn't ever outsmart any of those guys, or even STOP them on purpose. He basically loses over and over; his biggest contribution being simply to survive and exist. Think about it.
If Nolan laid the rules out, this here is still Snyder's movie, and he thankfully does give us some things to squeal about, none the least of which is that super cool Batmobile. Wonder Woman is also treated to a cool fanfare, showing up in that Snyder
Sucker Punch style amid a barrage of super heroic modern music, clearly able to hold her own, and with one hell of a will to jump into the fray. Ok, so it doesn't LOOK like the orthodox Wonder Woman we're all used to, but dagnabbit, when that magic lasso wraps itself around Doomsday, I wanted to hop out of my seat for the first time in the whole flick. There is also the absolute triumph of Ben Affleck's Batman being
able to fight. What a welcome series of sequences to see; when season 1 of Marvel's
Daredevil aired, I told my wife, "I wish someone would make a movie where Batman could fight like that." Thanks, Zack. Ironically, after seeing Affleck's
Daredevil movie, I thought that it would be cool if Warner would make a Batman movie that dark. Happily, Nolan went beyond that.
The Batman dream sequences recalled in me Roger Ebert's axiom that movies relying on
multiple dream sequences to further the plot are in trouble. Rob Zombie's
Halloween 2, among others, might seem to bear that out. Further, Bats' "dream within a dream", according to Ebert, would make it doubly so. The exceptions to a rule like that mostly include the character Freddy Krueger, but he aint here, so make of that what you will. As an excuse for Batman to dress up in that super cool trenchcoat and whoop ass all over the place with a gun, it works.
There is PLENTY of illogical corn, it must be said...how many in the audience bought that Batman is dumb enough to toss aside a weapon made of Kryptonite, for instance? And how bizarre to see the Batsignal on the apparent tiny island of Gotham visible in the night sky from Metropolis? How much distance were we dealing with when Lois heroically goes back for the Krypto-sword?
There is more, MUCH more, to be said about
Batman v Superman, particularly what I consider to be a very brave (and again, poetic) ending, and the way Snyder beats us over the head even more with this movie than in MoS with the religious "overtones" (that are now COMPLETELY spelled out) but the basis for the conception of this particular piece has been set by what I have said.
Over and over and over, I read on social media how "Superman sucks. Superman is boring. Superman is a goody-goody." I sometimes counter, when I have the will to debate for hours on Facebook, with how very challenging and awesome Superman is as a character, both because of his powers and because of his inevitable status as an outsider. Virtually all Superman stories have to deal with Clark Kent having to adjust to "real" life, for instance, and he often struggles to do so. Part of what makes it believable for Kent to put on glasses and change his hair a little and not be recognized is that Clark has to lead a double life; he has to be someone he is not, to some extent, on both sides of his dual personality. BvS doesn't deal with that as much, choosing to have Henry Cavill and Amy Adams' Lois Lane be pretty open about his humanity and lack thereof (which is interesting in a different way).
Here is my OWN anecdote, in the spirit of the entire driving plot behind BvS. When I was a kid, I saw
Superman: The Movie. I was VERY young, and I saw it at a drive-in. I saw
Star Wars the year before. The world was still a tough place all in all; dark and scary, but just like Luke Skywalker the year before, Superman was not. He was everything that was good, an outsider who still defended all that was good and moral, and the thought that he was "boring" or a "goody-goody" would have never even occurred to me. He was someone to look up to, someone who always tried to do the right thing. He sacrificed his own happiness for the greater good. I had a wardrobe of pretty much Superman and Star Wars shirts. I was Superman for Halloween (yes the classic Ben Cooper vinyl costume).
I was a teen when Tim Burton's
Batman came out in 1989. On opening day, my dad and I had to drive around (and eventually out of) the city to get tickets to see it. For us, it was TOTALLY worth it; we watched Michael Keaton and Jack Nicholson satisfyingly embody the IDEALS of the characters, if not a complete take on the characters themselves. On that point, I feel the newer DC movies differ...but that is digression. When the movie was over, after Papa and I went home, I ran around outside that night, acting like Batman, trying to talk a friend into being Robin so we could fight crime together.
Consider this sliver of an aside: my dad grew up with George Reeves and Adam West as Supes and Bats. He welcomed the new take on those characters in the form of Reeve and Keaton, because they were essentially the same characters in terms of morality and ideals. The agendas behind the films were to tell the best possible stories about pre-existing characters, which they mostly succeeded at, with the charms of the respective eras taken in context. When someone who grew up watching Adam West as Batman turns to you during screening of
Batman v Superman and says, "Michael Keaton will always be Batman to me," that tells you something. OK, he said, "Birdman will always be Batman to me," exact quote...but the sentiment is the same.
When I saw
The Dark Knight Rises with my 15 year old son, he was depressed when we left the theater. He walked out in cold silence after watching Bruce Wayne basically survive in some weird (hella ambitious), 3 hour dystopian nightmare of a movie in which Batman had his ass beat repeatedly. I asked him what was wrong. "That wasn't fun at all," he replied. Bummer.
When I saw BvS with my dad and my 16 and 14 year old daughters, my 14 year old bawled her eyes out for most of the last 15 minutes of the movie. She was quiet on the car ride home. No excitement over watching superheroes battle it out on a huge screen (in 3D, no less!), though she did like it, and became more animated when discussing certain aspects (yay, Wonder Woman! Batmobile! Batman beating up the bad guys!). My 16 year old was also wiping away tears.
I'm not saying that its bad to have a "grown-up" superhero film, even if trailer commercials are everywhere and toys and marketing make kids completely interested. Heck, Marvel was even ballsy enough to give
Deadpool the "R" rating so parents would know it aint for kids. Comic book stories deal with dark themes, and making them look and feel realistic is a worthwhile undertaking.
But in the context of today's world, should the ambiguity of the morality of arguably the greatest superhero of them all really be in question? Sure, its just a movie, just escapism, after all...but consider the actual world we live in right now. I don't need to run down the laundry list of the daily things we are dealing with, I'm sure. Suffice to say that I am writing this from Flint, Michigan and that should be example enough.
Why do YOU think my little girls were crying when Superman was killed? Was it because of the emotional attachment to icy Henry Cavill (though he is a hunk) from this movie or MoS? A little...I'm sure the scenes of Lois and Clark at home and abroad, and their undeniable love for each other had something to do with caring about his particular fate. How about the dual Marthas? Yes, that was a sweet touch...I gulped a little when Lois screamed "That was his mother's name!" at Batman...very moving moment that I'm sure affected my smart and intelligent young ladies.
But the BIGGEST reason is that my daughters, my sons, me, my wife, my dad, my mom...probably most of my entire family over the age of 10 go into these movies ALREADY loving Superman. We love him because we grew up with him. Christopher Reeve catching Lois after her fall from a skyscraper, his bright red cape waving defiantly in the night sky. Standing on the side of a building watching criminals try to break into a building ("Something wrong with the elevator?"). We love him because he figures out a way to stop General Zod from becoming the president.
 |
| "Is a bird showing off when it flies?" |
And not just because of the movies, but because of the TV shows, Lois and Clark, Smallville...we have repeatedly seen this character fleshed out from babyhood to boyhood to manhood (alienhood?) and our prior knowledge of how he will react, what he has been through, the mythology that surrounds him...that all works toward our caring about this
fictional character in a way that might be
uncool to admit to ourselves in such a dark, cynical world. Or even in the midst of a dark, somewhat cynical film that tries to distance itself so much from the character's inclinations that it's Batman who delivers the "There is good in the world" narration.
After all, Superman, the character who has generally embodied the good in the world in nearly every incarnation for decade upon decade, was willing to bring Batman's head to the obviously villainous and openly manipulative Mark Zuckerberg to save his mother (who would SURELY have disapproved of this had she known, the way Kevin Costner wanted no part of Clark sacrificing others to save him in the previous film).
Sigh.
And we love him because of the
comics. As stated before regarding the films, they are not always consistent from writer to writer; even Superman himself. I read the silliest Superman comics in the world when I was growing up, "The Superman Family". I was reading about his best pal, Jimmy Olsen, that unlikely helpful sidekick. I read about his gruff but sorta lovable boss, Perry White. His cousin, Supergirl. Hell, I read full, standalone stories about Superman's DOG.
My feeling is that this is the world climate that is in need of Superman as any ever has been. The idea of believing in a pure hero, someone who is fallible, but TRIES to make the right decision no matter the cost. Not an anti-hero who stumbles into doing the right thing because it's available on the way to his own self-serving agenda. Not even Batman, who has to hide in the night, and thrives on his own regret and instilling of fear in others to function as a weapon for the greater good.
When I saw
Deadpool, like most others I felt like it was a triumph of embracing the source material. It was funny, modern, violent yes, but with tongue FIRMLY in cheek. And as mentioned before, it was rated R. It revels in cynicism at times, but that can and often does lead to a different kind of catharsis than what a Superman movie might bring.
Deadpool correctly represents what that character has always represented. It might be telling, then, that my first thought upon leaving the packed theater was, "I hope they (movie studio execs) don't think this movie succeeds BECAUSE of its R rating."
The more people say that Superman is "boring", the more brave I think it is to ensure that his presence as a doer of good wins out, because as silly as it might sound, as uncool as it may seem, our cinematic hopes and dreams are a direct reflection of the society around us. We sometimes need escapism in the form of our established myths and heroes in a way that nurtures our own well being, especially kids. Superman is different than other superheroes because he already embodies qualities that transcend any one movie. Any new mass released story is merely building on what we already know, and is able to play off of our foreknowledge and affection for the character.
Look, Batman is an INCREDIBLE comic book and movie character. He has a deep story that leaves room for mystery and personal growth while making us intrigued by scenes in which Bruce Wayne has to engage in his "playboy" persona. He is adept at playing hunter and measuring his own dramatic entrances, because he is built on the idea that criminals are a "cowardly lot", and he can use a dark flair for the dramatic to his own good. He will punch a criminal into telling him what he needs to know, and even though he has his own highly tuned sense of morality (much like Spider-Man, who also had to learn the lesson the hard way), he is not like Superman.
Superman stands for the light, in a way, though he has his own tragedies and demons. Unlike Batman, he does not allow those demons to control his actions. He is not world weary or of the belief that he may not be making a huge difference, whereas Batman states in BvS that he is fighting a losing battle. Superman will save a cat in a tree for a sad kid; he knows that makes a difference to at least ONE person (and one cat). Superman really believes that there is good in the world. He opines that if there isn't, or if there is somehow LESS or DECLINING good in the world, then he will do what he can to make the world a better place.
We sometimes feel as if we SHOULD do the right thing, but we don't know if its worth it, or we feel like we might be wasting our time. And that's why, even in our moments of entertainment and escapism, we seek representations of either or both of those ideals.
That's why there is a Batman AND a Superman.
