** 1\2 (out of ****)
Gods and monsters.
Men want to turn Gods into humans and turn themselves into Gods in "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice" (2016).
"Things fall. Things on earth. And what falls, is fallen." These words are spoken by Bruce Wayne / Batman (Ben Affleck), in narration, at the beginning of filmmaker Zack Snyder's super-hero epic. Putting aside the sophomoric nature of the writing (and some people had the audacity to say art-house, international filmmakers such as Theo Angelopoulos and Ingmar Bergman wrote pretentious dialogue) lets think about the words, while also considering the movie's full title.
Things fall. What does that mean? Has "justice" fallen? One definition of the word "dawn", means to begin. Has the world been without justice? Things fall. Does this mean physical things, falling down? The words are spoken over a sequence explaining the origins of Batman, witnessing the death of his parents. Where was justice? In slow motion we see Bruce's father fall to the ground, after being hit with a bullet. We see the bullet fall to the ground. We see Bruce's mother fall to the ground, along with her broken pearl necklace. And, a young Bruce Wayne falls down, into a grave. Of course when things fall, they get up. In that grave Bruce Wayne has fallen into, an army of bats lift him out of the grave, as the narration explains, and took him into the light. A bright shiny light. Is that light goodness? Is it justice? God?
Of course, "Dawn of Justice" could just be a teaser, implying the movie is simply a set-up for the formation of the Justice League. During that tragic night, when Bruce's parents are killed, they are seen leaving a movie theatre. It is 1981 however there is a poster of 1940's "The Mark of Zorro" and the marquee shows "Excalibur" (1981) is playing. That was a movie about King Arthur and the knights of the round table. A new group of knights will band together now. Zorro was a man that fought for the oppressed. With these two movie posters, Snyder and "Batman v Superman" have foreshadowed their story and shown us all their cards.
The movie jumps ahead, as an adult Bruce Wayne, makes his way to Metropolis. Superman (Henry Cavill) is fighting General Zod, as Wayne hectically tries to have employees evacuate one of his buildings. It is too late. Tragedy ensues. Where is justice? How could this God-like creature, Superman, allow this to happen? How can salvation and devastation exist at the same time?
This is an analysis of the first five minutes of "Batman v Superman" and the questions central to the movie. Each character tries to answer these questions. Some draw dangerous conclusions. Others political. Too few, heroic.
"Batman v Superman", despite a box-office, of more than $870 million, was considered a failure. The movie didn't live up to the expectations of teenage fanboys. The title of the movie suggest a showdown between Batman and Superman. A fight to the finish. Instead the movie takes a more serious approach. A realistic (?) approach, examining how our world would react to these figures. The big showdown doesn't happen until 100 minutes into this 150 minute movie.
The sheep (movie critics) weren't any better. The movie scored a mere 28% approval rating on the website, Rotten Tomatoes, out of 415 reviews. They complained about too many special effects (ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! Did this movie have any more effects than any other comic book movie?), the serious tone of the plot, calling it "humorless" and a "drag". Of course, when the sheep were given the go ahead to praise Christopher Nolan's "The Dark Knight" (2008), they praised it to the moon and back. There they loved the serious nature of the movie and the "moral complexities" presented.
That isn't to say however, "Batman v Superman" is a great movie. It isn't. In fact it suffers from the same things as "The Dark Knight". The movie goes on too long. The moral questions at its center become repetitive. This movie did not need to be 2 hours and 30 minutes. Trim 40 minutes of the movie and you might be dealing with a masterpiece. An astonishing comment, coming from me.
In this movie, Batman has been fighting crime in Gotham City for 20 years, and presented a lot older than we usual expect. He has made it his mission to stop Superman. An alien with supernatural powers, who seems to answer to no one. At least that is the concern of the government, and in particular, Sen. Finch (Holly Hunter). The government needs to figure out a way to make Superman bend at the knee, and become obedient. Should they enlist the help of Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg, whose presence I am sure was meant to make us think of his role in "The Social Network" (2010), where he played another ego-maniac, out for world domination)? He has managed to obtain Kryptonite, Superman's weakness, which the government can use as a precautionary measure against the man of steel.
This, within itself, is a commentary on power. Who has it and how can we control it? Given Superman is God-like, is there also not a question of spirituality? Talking heads are seen on TV debating Superman's power and his moral responsibility. Is believing in the goodness of Superman, the same as believing in God? A divine being, protecting us. Or is Batman right? Men create the world they want to live in. The movie, repeatedly, sets up the confrontation between Batman and Superman as Man versus God.
The media is another target of the movie. We see Perry White (Laurence Fishburne), editor of the Daily Planet, assign stories to reporters. He gives them the headlines and they have to write the article. This is sensationalism. Movie fans, think of it this way. It is like coming up with the title of the movie, before writing it. The title should be attention grabbing and commercial, to appeal to a mainstream audience. Then write the script to match the title. The media in "Batman v Superman" consistently stir up unnecessary conflicts and report improper motives.
While all of these commentaries are fine and good, I am growing more and more annoyed with this notion that comic books, and their movie counterparts, are the new great American literature, and bastions of political and cultural discourse. How about Hollywood make movies dealing with these themes without men in capes? I've tried to be a good obedient boy and give these super-hero movies a second and third try, and while I can appreciate some, when will enough be enough? Do you know what the top grossing movie of 2019 was? "Avengers: Endgame" (2019). Know what the top grossing movie of 2018 was? "Avengers: Infinity War" (2018). Know what it was in 2016, the year "Batman v Superman" was released? "Captain America: Civil War" (2016).
And, the commentaries are never profound. As in "The Dark Knight" and again here, a kind of Sophie's Choice is presented. How much destruction is Superman willing to cause in order to save the woman he loves, Lois Lane (Amy Adams)? In "The Dark Knight" situations like this were created over and over again and yet some dare call it, one of the greatest movies they have ever seen. Sheep and some in the public, did cartwheels and somersaults, tripping over themselves in praise of "Black Panther" (2018). Why? Sure, I could see the commentary on identity but what of it? Shamefully the movie was nominated for seven Academy Awards, including best picture. Are the expectations for these movies so low, they merely have to hint on a theme to be championed as profound and relevant?
One of the bright spots in "Batman v Suprman" was the appearance of Gal Gadot, as Diana Prince. She is a woman with a secret past, hunting down Lex Luthor, for possible information he may have on her. By the end of the movie, she is revealed to be Wonder Woman, though that name is never used. She will be, seemingly, the glue that brings the Justice League together.
I also found Ben Affleck to be good in the movie. His casting was quite a controversy when announced. He simply put, didn't look the part. After understanding the interpretation of the character this time around, Affleck is suitable in the role. Questions involving the character's age, were erased from my mind, and I bought Affleck in the role. It is not the most fleshed out characterization of Batman I have seen on-screen, but, Affleck does present the character's concern realistically. A stand alone movie, with Affleck as star and director, never panned out. Robert Pattinson took over the role with a release date re-scheduled for next year.
On the other hand, Henry Cavill never stood out in the role and made an impression. Everyone in the movie reacts to the idea of Superman, but the character Superman actually has little to do plot-wise. I didn't time it but I am willing to bet Bruce Wayne / Batman has more screen time than Clark Kent / Superman. If I'm wrong, it only goes to prove how little of an impression was made on me.
One can admire director Snyder, and screenwriters Chris Terrio and David S. Goyer, attempting to change the tone of the super-hero movie, to something more adult-ish. Clearly that decision however is what causes DC movies to lack the positive fanfare of the Marvel movies. "Justice League" (2017) wasn't as playful as Avenger movies either. When DC goes playful, "Wonder Woman" (2017), the results are much more positive. I must admit, I enjoyed "Wonder Woman" quite a bit. Moreso than "Captain Marvel" (2019), that other female led super-hero movie.
Movie fans may find they might enjoy this movie a bit more a second time around. Now they will realize the movie isn't going to be a light, breezy, action packed showdown between the two super-heroes. Eliminating preconceive notions, you can pay better attention to what is actually going on, on-screen, and read into the story.
"Batman v Superman" was the second movie in the DC Extended Universe, coming after "Man of Steel" (2013), and has its good points. I am on the fence. I see the larger themes the movie wants to hit on but feel it doesn't make any grand statements. What is it all supposed to amount to? Why should I care? Are we putting too much importance on comic book movies?
Posts
