Batman v Superman: Night or Day... or maybe just Dawn

Dear Readers,
 

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 21^st 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.

Why I am Ashamed to be a Republican (and it's not what you think)

Dear Readers,

All right, I will admit it; I am ashamed to be a Republican right now.  Over the years, I have been disappointed and disheartened by my party, but never have I felt the absolute disgust that I currently face when identifying myself with the party.  And it is not for the reasons you might think.

Many people, when seeking to condemn the Republican party, point to allegations of racism, sexism, religious intolerance, or the machinations of big business interests.  Those people see current Republican front runner Donald Trump as the epitome of everything wrong with the Republican party; a loud mouthed, thin skinned bully who “hates Mexicans, women, and anyone who doesn’t agree with him.”  In the minds of these critics, I should be ashamed to be a Republican because we would choose Trump as a viable candidate.

I am not ashamed of Donald Trump.  Despite the naysayers, despite the media, despite the attacks, I understand his appeal, and I defend those who choose to vote for him.  He chooses to be incorrect in a society stifled by rampant political correctness.  He approaches the niceties of D.C. from the outside, and responds like any non-political, rational person.  He is disgusted by the rampant corruption and power games of the D.C. establishment, and he refuses to play by their rules.  This “outsider” perspective is appealing to voters who are frustrated by the lack of reasonable action in D.C. on issues as diverse as terrorism, the economy, government debt, or immigration.  While these voters may not agree with the majority of Donald Trump’s personal views (such as his sometimes sexist comments), they believe that his defiance of conventional wisdom may allow him to break through the gridlock in D.C. and make legitimate and needed changes.  Ultimately, it is prerogative of the voter to choose the candidate that they believe will best represent their interests and vote accordingly, and it is the height of arrogance to assume that the vast number of people who believe that Donald Trump may be that person are universally stupid, racists, sexists, or bigoted.

This is why I am ashamed to be a Republican; because the party with which I am affiliated refuses to acknowledge the power of the people, and the people’s right to choose their own leaders.  The RNC recently announced the possibility of a third party run should Donald Trump win the nomination, and the Republican establishment in D.C. has made it clear that should any member of the senate or house feels his/her seat is threatened by Trump’s nomination, they are free to run on an opposition platform.  This behavior is not acceptable for a party that claims to represent its constituents.  It is echoed by the unacceptable behavior of the other candidates for the Republican nomination.  I am willing to acknowledge the necessity for attacks upon Donald Trump’s policy, and potentially even his character.  Attacks upon his physical appearance, and the kind of scummy rhetoric that has come out of the candidates during the last two debates, however, is not befitting of aspirants for the highest office in the land.  Trump bears some of the blame for this, as his attacks upon his opponents have been personal and uncalled for.  However, Trump has set himself up as the candidate who is politically incorrect, the candidate who can and will flaunt the niceties in order to accomplish his purpose.  Every other candidate on state is, and should be, viewed in contrast with Trump.  They should not be playing his game; the primary should be about presenting to the voters the kind of candidate that they are, and then leaving it to the voter’s judgment who they believe is the best choice for the party.  Instead, this petty name calling and mudslinging does no favours for any of the candidates.  It damages the images of the other candidates, as they seem to openly be rejecting the voice of the people, and ultimately damages the party, as the candidates provide ammunition for the opposition party come the general election.  Of course Trump is not an electable candidate if the leaders of his own party will not bite the bullet and support him.

Ultimately this is what disgusts me about the Republican party at this point in the election.  There are, as I see it, two choices for the party that allow it to maintain its political integrity, will provide a path to victory in November, and are also not reprehensible to the voters.  The first option is to cave and support Trump.  Obviously, he speaks for a substantial portion of the population; the people have spoken, so it is time to begin consolidating power and support behind the prospective nominee and look toward the general election.  The focus in this option should be on defeating Hillary Clinton, and mending the gaps between Trump and those who oppose him.  Trump has been a very polarizing candidate, and there is also a large block in the Republican party that is vehemently opposed to Trump and his policy.  The party establishment and Trump should begin building bridges to those voters so as not to loose the White House in November.  Trump, it seems, had begun trying to take steps in that direction.  Many of his speeches lately have demonstrated a more subdued tone, a greater focus on policy, and attention to the faults of Hillary Clinton.  The attacks by the other candidates, and the Republican establishment, however, have not allowed Trump opportunities to build those bridges, and he has been forced to respond to attacks on his character instead of focusing his attention on the real threat in Hillary Clinton.  The party cannot expect to be victorious in November if they are constantly tearing down their potential nominee and placing him in opposition with their interests.  Donald Trump is a loaded gun of a candidate.  The Republicans should be pointing him at Hillary Clinton, not at themselves.

The other option for the party is to consolidate support behind one of the other remaining candidates and actively campaign against Trump.  As I mentioned earlier, there are a large portion of the republican party that does not like Trump and think him a danger to the party.  Those voters, however, are split between Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, and neither can beat Trump without the voters currently choosing the other candidate.  It is here that the Republican party really needs to swallow their pride, and put pressure on Marco Rubio to drop out and throw his support behind Tex Cruz.  So far, Cruz has been a more viable candidate than Rubio, winning a a greater number of states.  Cruz’s greatest asset against Trump, however, is his similar position as an “outsider.”  Although Cruz is a member of the Senate, and nominally a member of the establishment, everyone in D.C. hates him.  He appeals, as a fighter willing to oppose his own party, to those voters who are fed up with the lack of action in D.C., but are looking for a less radical option than Trump.  If Ted Cruz were to drop out of the race, it is uncertain that the majority of his voters would go to Rubio, or whether they would consider Trump as a better option than the establishment choice of Marco Rubio.  It is unlikely, however, that the voters who place their support behind Rubio would ever vote for Trump; and his dropping out of the race would result in a consolidation of power behind Cruz that might be enough to derail Trump’s prospective nomination.  This is similar to the situation in the Democratic party.  Hillary Clinton is not a great candidate.  She is terribly unlikable, untrustworthy, with a history of scandals.  Bernie Sanders in contrast, is likable, and building a movement among young voters.  He is also a socialist, and the party cannot afford to have a socialist candidate in the general election.  The Democratic party has consolidated support behind Mrs. Clinton, and so she has been able to remain ahead in the race, despite growing Sanders support and her own deficits as a candidate.  Something similar could be done in the Republican party, where Donald Trump’s candidacy is viewed by the party in a similar light as Sanders’, and deemed politically unacceptable in a general election, and so the party chooses another candidate, not “ideal,” but electable in Ted Cruz (or Hillary Clinton) in order to consolidate voters in opposition to Trump.

At this point, the only reason (outside of ego) that John Kasich and Marco Rubio would remain in the race would be to prevent Trump from amassing a majority of delegates at the convention, which would create the potentiality of a “white horse” candidate; a candidate currently not in the race who is chosen as an alternative to the given choices.  This possibility, as appealing as it may seem to an establishment that does not want a Donald Trump nomination, and who do not like Ted Cruz personally, is political suicide this year.  The reason Donald Trump has gained such a great degree of support is because voters are tired of the establishment candidates.  Any “white horse” candidate the Republican party leaders put forward would be viewed as an establishment cats-paw, and a direct insult to the voters who cast ballots for Trump.  Trump would then be legitimized in a third party run (as he mentioned in the fall, a third party candidacy is not off the table should he be “screwed over” by the Republican party), and the party would be split, resulting in the loss of the presidency.  Similarly, a third party race by a Republican establishment candidate would split the vote, resulting in a Democrat in the White House.  Either option should not be acceptable to the Republican party because they are not representative of the desires of Republican voters (who want to win the White House).

Each of these two options have been evidenced in the endorsements of Chris Christy and Lindsey Graham this week.  Christy has come out to support Trump; providing the endorsement of a well-known and respected centrist Republican.  Graham said in an interview of CBS news, “We are about ready to lose to the most dishonest politician in America, Hillary Clinton…Ted Cruz is not my favorite by any means…but we may be in a position where we have to rally around Ted Cruz as the only way to stop Donald Trump.  I can’t believe I would say (that), but yes.”  Graham and Christ represent the only options Republicans have left for victory in November.  Marco Rubio is not going win at this point; it is just not going to happen.  Either a third party candidacy or a “white horse” nomination will split the Republican vote and give the White House to the Democrats.

I understand both option are distasteful to the Republican establishment, but I ask DO WE WANT HILLARY CLINTON IN THE WHITE HOUSE?  She is, as Graham mentioned, the most dishonest politician in D.C.!  She was a terrible Secretary of State; her failure to respond to security threats to our embassy in Libya in the months before the Benghazi attacks demonstrate either gross incompetence of willful negligence that resulted in the deaths of four Americans and the ongoing destabilization of that region.  She risked the national security of the United States for the sake of convenience by sending over a thousand top secret emails through her private server and failing to mark them as classified (it was part of her responsibility as Sec. of State to ensure that such information was classified properly).  The list of her deficiencies as a potential commander and chief goes on.  As a Republican, I want my party to do everything in its power to prevent her presidency.  If that means the establishment has to take steps distasteful to it, so be it; I as a republican voter have had to do the same.  Over this election, and the last two election cycles, the Republican party has put forward a number of candidates that I found less than ideal.  Both John McCain and Mitt Romney were liberal for my tastes, and I disagreed with them on a number of policy issues, however, I voted for them because I viewed them as superior to the alternative of Barak Obama’s presidency.  It is time for the establishment to make the same sacrifices that they demand of their voters; to swallow their pride, distaste, and their personal feelings do what is the best thing for Republicans; keeping Hillary Clinton out of the White House.  I am ashamed to be a Republican because this week my party has been behaving in a childish and immature manner.  Things have not been going their way, and so the establishment has thrown a temper tantrum; mudslinging, threatening third party races, and behaving in a self destructive manner.  I am ashamed to be a Republican because the leaders in my party do not respect the will of the people.  I am ashamed to be a Republican because my party is so busy destroying itself from the inside it doesn’t see the real threat.  I am ashamed to be a Republican because we are a house divided against itself, and unless the establishment politicians in D.C. make a complete turn around in their policy and begin bringing the party back together, we will not be able to stand come November.

Well, back to reality.