Along with most of the rest of the internet, I went and saw Batman
V. Superman: Dawn of Justice last week, and
like all of them, I have an opinion.
Most of the opinions about the film tend toward the extreme… “worst
superhero movie ever,” “It was amazing, go see it,” “D.C. just can’t make a
good superhero movie to save their franchise.” I like to think that my opinion on the film is a little more
balanced than that. Batman
V. Superman was an enjoyable romp;
certainly not the best movie ever, but not deserving of the hatred and venom it
has been receiving. While the film
had its faults (and yes, it had enough of those), ultimately, it was no less
(or more) than what it needed to be.
If you want my analysis, read on, bearing in mind that there will be spoilers
for the plot of the film. If you
have not seen the film, and don’t want anything spoiled, skip down to my sum up
section for my recommendation for the film.
What it did wrong
Critics of the film are right about a number of the films
flaws. BvS struggles with its pacing and development; the
beginning lags with many of the scenes feeling disjointed and disconnected,
skipping between characters and locations without segues that would allow the
audience to make the transitions with the characters; one example of this which
has come up in a number of reviews that I have read is a scene with Lawrence
Fishburn as Perry White in which he makes a comment about Clark Kent vanishing
all the times, commenting “Does he click his heels and go back to Kansas?” This would be a great opportunity to
cut to Superman doing appropriately Superman-like things. Instead, the film cuts to Lois Lane meeting
with a source, then to Bruce Wayne.
That comment would have been an excellent segue into what is going on
with Superman, and is a golden opportunity wasted. This problem carries through most of the first half of the
film, creating scenes that feel more like a tableau than a film.
Because the filmic style is so disjointed, it is difficult
to narrativize the journeys of the main characters. We find out a lot of information about Bruce Wayne/ Batman-
that he is in a dark phase where he is branding criminals, that he lost people
in the battle with Zod from Man of Steel, and
that he blames and distrusts Superman.
We also see him doing suitably Batman-like things: taking down mobsters,
infiltrating enemy parties to obtain information, and acting as a detective in
uncovering both information about Superman’s weaknesses and the plans of other
enemies. All of this should
combine to create a character that is alive, as true to the comics as a film
version can be, and very interesting.
Unfortunately, while Ben Affleck gives a stellar performance, due either
to issues with the script or with the direction, he is not given the chance to
mature into a rounded character.
His motivations remain the same (Superman bad… must punch!) up to the
films climax, when it shifts (to Doomsday and Lex Luther... bad… must
punch!).
Similarly, while more time is given to Superman’s character
development, it is never paired with opportunities to be, well, SUPER. Superman gets to do a lot of moping,
while to world questions his motivations for being a hero, he gets to do some
more moping while he questions his own motivations, and then, when he finally
gets an opportunity to tell people his motivations, it blows up in his face
(literally). There is no real
moment for Superman, where we get to see him stand up and be the annoyingly
perfect, morally strong, confident, unequivocally good person that epitomizes Superman as a character. The whole point of Superman is that he
is too good to be true, but somehow is.
Batman v. Superman spends
its entire run time questioning that basic assumption; that Superman is good,
but then fails to give the character any opportunities to prove that he is a
good guy, or to state his reasons and motivations for being so.
In both Batman and Superman, the film struggles because of
its awareness of the characters.
The film is so certain about who Batman is, it never gives the character
opportunity to grow and develop.
The film is so uncertain about who Superman actually is that he is never
given the opportunity to take a stand and be himself. And this, I think might be the problem with Batman v
Superman. It is at once unwieldy in its view of itself, while at the
same time, uncertain of what it is supposed to be. BvS was
supposed to be D.C.’s answer to the ever-growing Marvel Cinematic Universe, a
character ensemble that took the beloved heroes and brought them to the silver
screen as a foundation for further stories and adventures. The fact that this was “Not a Marvel
movie” screamed through every minute in the dark colors, philosophical
ramblings on the theodicy of Superman, artistic cinematography, and total lack
of humor. But while BvS knew that it was not a Marvel superhero movie, it
struggled with identity, unable to move past the superficial things that
separate it from the rival franchise, and latch onto that “thing” that makes it
unique and worth investing in. It
was fine, it was good, but it wasn’t different, and because it was just another superhero movie,
the aspects that were not Marvel-ous where disappointing, because that is what
we associate with good superhero movies now.
What the movie did right
As I mentioned earlier, I thought that the portrayal of
Batman in the film was spot on.
While I do not read the comics myself, I have a number of friends who
do, who have mentioned disappointment with various Batman films because they
seem unable to hold in tension Batman as the vigilante, and Batman the
billionaire genius playboy philanthropist detective vigilante who is capable of
so much more than just punching things.
Affleck’s portrayal is able to bring more of these layers to the
surface, dancing from Bruce Wayne checking out a beautiful woman at a party to
Bond-like spy infiltrating an enemy party to angry (borderline psychotic)
vigilante obsessed with bringing down Superman without breaking the suspension
of disbelief. That is a lot of
parts to hold in tension, and Affleck does a creditable job in bringing them
together. Also a joy in this film
is the chemistry between him and Jeremy Irons as Alfred. Irons brings the few moments of
intentional levity in the story, applying a dry, British wit with rapier
precision. The interactions between
his Alfred and Affleck’s Batman are a pleasure to watch, and set up nicely a
future Batman stand-alone movie with Affleck.
While the film struggled structurally, it was successful cinematically. It created a number of beautiful,
resonant, and impactful scenes based on pure imagery. The artistry of the scene in which Bruce Wayne’s parents are
murdered is particularly compelling, well constructed and beautifully
filmed. Because the film has more
the feeling of a tableau than a narrative often times the imagery of these
scenes becomes the focus, rather than the story.
The movie is also successful in building anticipation for
future films in the franchise. The
introduction of Wonder Woman, and the hints about her history set up nicely a stand-alone
film, as does the brief introduction of various other members of the Justice
League (Aquaman, the Flash, and Cyborg).
In fact, the film serves better as an introduction to the greater
universe than it does as a solo project.
Various dream sequences hint at a coming catastrophe, building a sense
of expectation for the future of the universe. While these scenes are very disorienting in the movie,
hopefully they will pay off in the future when viewed in the context of
upcoming films.
On a personal note, I am sssooo excited for the Aquaman
movie! A lot of people dismiss
Aquaman because they don’t know what he is capable of. Casting Jason Momoa in
the role makes the character look really badass, which is half the battle with
Aquaman.
The In-between
There were also a number of aspects of the film that
balanced on the edge of being either brilliant or absurd, either problematic or
full of potential. The role of
women in the film is one of these aspects, Jesse Eisenberg’s portrayal of Lex
Luthor the other.
It is a truth universally acknowledged that there is a
shortage of powered and powerful women in our superhero movies. Up until Avengers: Age of Ultron, the only female “superhero” in the MCU was Black
Widow, a capable but significantly non-powered individual. The addition of Scarlet Witch goes a
step toward fixing the discrepancy, but the dominance of powerful men in
superhero movies still remains an issue.
The inclusion of Wonder Woman in BvS can be seen as another step in the right direction,
but some of the choices in characterization still indicate a problematic
perspective on the role of women, a perspective compounded by the
characterization of Lois Lane.
Over the last decade, we have had two Superman movies and
three Batman movies. Each of these
characters has had the opportunity to shine on the big screen, but noticeably
absent has been the third member of the Justice League triumvirate, Wonder
Woman. And while her return to
film in BvS is great, the character
teeters on an edge between “TOTALLY AWESOME” and “merely an object for the male
gaze.” Let me be clear: I loved
her when she was Wonder Woman-ing.
As the powerful superhero that can hold her own and show up the top men
in the Justice League, the character could not be beat. In that way, she was everything a
female superhero should be… the character that showed up and, as my rather
enthusiastic sister commented “got shit done.” While Superman is off rescuing Lois Lane, and Batman is
getting pounded, Wonder Woman effectively holds off Doomsday by
herself! She makes more progress toward winning the final battle than
either of her male compatriots; restraining the monster so that Batman can
disable it briefly so that Superman can kill it (and [spoilers] get killed
himself in the process). As a
superhero, Wonder Woman was everything I could have asked for and more. The crowd in my theatre cheered exactly
once in the entire movie; when Wonder Woman showed up for the final fight and
was totally cool.
Where the portrayal struggled was in the representation of
Dianna Prince, and her motivations on a personal level. There is no development for her as a
character. She seems shoehorned
into the first half of the film, in a role that was designed for “pretty extra
number three” who flirts a bit with Bruce Wayne and maybe causes a slight
setback in his master plan. We get
nothing about her history; who she is, why she is in Metropolis/Gotham, what
her capabilities are, why she thinks it is a good idea to team up with Batman
and Superman, what her favorite color is… nothing. While this provides a good lead into the Wonder Woman stand-alone
film, it kills the character’s potential in BvS. As Dianna Prince, she is
nothing more than a pretty face in a pretty (revealing) dress. For me, one of the most interesting
parts of a superhero is how they balance their secret identity with their hero
persona. To have this conflict
between the person and the hero, you have to know both sides of the
character. Wonder Woman in this
movie does not have that other side of her character, the side that explains
her motivations, and so the character suffers.
While I am ranting about the problematic portrayal of women,
let me take just a moment to address Lois Lane. She does absolutely nothing useful in the whole movie! She serves as a sounding board for
Clark’s insecurities, and she has to be rescued at the most inconvenient times,
and that is it! It was frustrating
because there were opportunities for her to be more. She is a smart, capable woman, a Pulitzer Prize winning
journalist with an interest in finding the truth and uncovering the story. It is these traits that are supposed to
get her into situations where she needs to be rescued by Superman, and these
are the traits that should also redeem the character. She spends the whole film trying to uncover who is behind
the plot to discredit Superman and why.
She almost gets the pieces, then gets dropped off a roof, has to be
rescued, and instead of her being able to reveal what she has learned and help
Superman in her own way, she is instead dropped off, and the information is
instead conveyed through a convoluted Lex Luthor villain monologue. Similarly, after the confrontation
between Batman and Superman, she finds a Kryptonite spear that Batman had
created to kill Superman, and she throws it in the harbor to keep safely away
from Superman. Two minutes later
we find out that Doomsday is Kryptonian, and the only thing that can kill him
is that spear. Now Lois, being the
clever girl she is, figures out that they might need the spear, and jumps in
the harbor to retrieve the spear.
This would have been a great opportunity to show her, the non-powered,
merely human doing something heroic and self-sacrificing, as she retrieves the
spear and almost dies in the process.
But no! Instead, the
building falls on top of her as soon as she tries to get in the water, trapping
her underwater, and forcing Superman to stop in the middle of his battle with
Doomsday to come save her, then dive to get he spear himself, which nearly
kills him. Lois Lane is a menace
in the movie, providing no redeeming qualities to offset her ineptitude and
propensity to be captured. She
epitomizes the bland, annoying damsel in distress who can’t make a good
decision to save her own life, and causes so many problems it’s a wonder anyone
bothers anymore. It was very
frustrating, in a film that finally gets a powerful female superhero that is
able to hold her own with the boys to have the other representation of women be
so pathetic.
OK, rant over.
Sorry about that.
The other aspect of the film that teetered on the edge of
meh or greatness was Jesse Eisenberg’s portrayal of Lex Luthor. Eisenberg’s Luthor is a twitchy madman,
constantly rambling about whatever pops into his head and spouting
philosophical platitudes in a rather broken version of the English
language. I can’t decide whether
the portrayal is brilliant or just a bit silly. Luthor is supposed to be a genius, a mind so powerful he can
understand Kryptonian science, so calculating that he is arguably the greatest
foe Superman faces, a brilliant man who’s taste in art and culture is only
surpassed by his hatred of Superman.
And Eisenberg’s Luther is that… kind of. He manipulates the world around him to a T, pulling off the
plans he has put in motion and having back-up after back-up in order to destroy
the Man of Steel. But how and why? Eisenberg’s Luthor is socially incompetent,
incapable of having a real conversation without going off in unexpected
digressions, fragmented sentences, and catchphrases. This 21st century interpretation of the character
is interesting, but does not necessarily fit with the story. While it is possible to believe that a
socially awkward genius like Luthor might have made his fortune in a tech
company, it seems less likely that he would have the force of charisma and
persona required to get people to follow him in his vendetta against Superman,
or even that he would have enough understanding of people that he would be able
to pull off the successful campaign against Superman’s character. His motivations are weak; the
rationality behind his actions questionable, and so Luthor comes across as more
of a mad scientist than man behind the curtain. Like I said earlier, the characterization teeters between
brilliant and silly. In its best
moments (such as his conversation with Superman on the top of the LexCorp
building), the portrayal is chilling and Luthor becomes what he has always
been; the mastermind pulling everyone’s strings until all the players are lined
up where he wants them, and there is nothing they can do to stop him. At its worst (like at the LexCorp gala
where he attempts to give a speech on philanthropy), the portrayal lacks
gravitas and comes across almost Joker-esque, which does not work in a villain
like Lex Luthor who is supposed to be all about the plan and control.
Let me explain… no there is too much, let me sum up
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is a fine movie… fine like when your parents ask you
how you are and you say “fine.” It
is not anything special, which, when compared to the high bar set by Marvel
films, seems a disappointment. It
does exactly what it needs to; it sets up future movies in the D.C. universe
spectacularly, and gives us a good foundation for those solo movies,
particularly in the portrayals of Batman and Wonder Woman. Many of the problems with the movie
come from it either not knowing its subject and audience well enough, and
substituting artistic representation for such film-making essentials as
character development and a structured narrative. Some things work really well, like the portrayals of Batman,
Alfred, Wonder Woman, and (on occasion) Lex Luthor. Others fall flat, like the characterization of Superman and
Lois Lane. In the end, this is a
movie worth seeing, if only for the foundation work it does for future D.C.
films. The film offers some
excellent action shots and some beautiful cinematography, and ultimately does
what a superhero movie should; it is entertaining and fun, and approaches its
subject in a thoughtful (if sometimes misguided) way. Ultimately, this movie is only what it claims to be... the Dawn of the Justice League: not the noon bright of the perfect Superman movie, or the dark night of an ideal Batman movie; not sparklingly Marvel-ous, but the grey introduction to something new, something that has great potential, but has not yet gotten there, something that can be brilliant or horrific, a blank slate for a new day of superhero movies.
Well, back to reality.
No comments:
Post a Comment