I’m a little bit troubled by what I
feel to be a lack of legitimate reviews on this movie. There is a
very well established network of print and social media where the
general public should be able to trust professional and well-educated
individuals to share their honest assessment of art, literature and
film without promoting a non-related agenda. Art is one of the
cornerstones of civilized society, and it’s important that every
artist, no matter how big or small, have their contribution judged on
its own merits. I has been disturbed to witness the negative social
media campaign aimed at Batman v Superman since the film’s
production was announced. Most of the criticisms I have read on this
film have not been of a scholarly variety, and although I do not
think this film is a “masterpiece” by any means, it is not a bad
film, in fact I found it very interesting and thought provoking.
If “Batman v Superman” is only
worthy of a 29% approval rating on Rottentomatoes.com, why is the
viewer assessment of this film sitting at 7.2/10 on IMDB.com?
Furthermore, the box office has been tremendous. There are
indications that this film has fans, but according to my Facebook
news feed, most media sources list this as a “disappointment” or
a “train-wreck,” but, again, they do not provide scholarly
arguments and rely instead on hysterical generalizations. It’s
almost as if these reviews come from media sources that are owned by
a corporation that produces its own rival super hero films.
But let’s focus on BvS instead of
conspiracies. By far the best part of this movie is Affleck as
Batman. There has never been a Batman on screen quite like this.
Affleck’s version is the grittiest and nastiest Batman we’ve ever
seen. BvS introduces Batman as a figure terrifying to both police and
criminals. The first time we see him, he’s hiding from a police
officer in a ceiling (very much the physical representation of a
bat). When the officer happens to see Batman, he’s so scared that
he fires a couple shots as Batman scurries away.
Now, that is a very interesting scene
and it establishes the kind of universe we’re dealing with here. In
virtually every other Batman film, Batman is an aid to the police.
Sometimes they work together directly, sometimes they have a kind of
gentleman’s agreement. However, in BvS, Batman is clearly a
vigilante that the cops are concerned about.
This is a theme that hasn’t been
addressed in other comic book films. Are super heroes actually
heroes, or are they entities with too much power that threaten to
infringe on civil liberties? I find this question interesting because
it has corollaries in real life. Obviously there are no super heroes,
but there are entities with power that claim to be “protecting you”
while arguably working towards your enslavement. How much leeway do
you give entities like that? Do you let them gain power to the point
where you’re essentially committing suicide simply by opposing
them?
Batman begins to view Superman as a
threat. During the course of the film, this assessment is mainly due
to the manipulation of Lex Luthor, but it remains a fascinating
dynamic. Honestly, in all the negative reviews you’ve read of BvS,
how many have complained that Batman wasn’t portrayed as “tough
enough” to handle Superman? I’ve actually seen the film, and I
think the battle is quite convincing. Both Affleck and Cavill bring
an almost super-human physicality to their roles.
Batman comes to view his fight with
Superman as his “legacy” fight. He reveals this in a conversation
with Alfred, played to perfection by Jeremy Irons. In another
discussion with Alfred (these discussions are also a highlight)
Batman acknowledges that he and Alfred are “Criminals,” which, to
me, makes him a more sympathetic Batman than others we’ve seen. One
of the main criticisms of Snyder’s vision of this comic book
universe is an apparent willingness for his super heroes to shed the
blood of their victims. I attribute this anger to a kind of
“innocence fallacy” where these fans think Batman is justified in
performing his acts of vigilantism as long as he does so
non-lethally. The question becomes: what attacks and defenses is
Batman allowed to use to appease this need? A punch to the chest can
be a lethal attack, yet most fans are content to watch their
superhero smash villains repeatedly. Is the line at breaking the
skin? A punch to the face with draw blood from the nose, eyes, and
mouth. If a villain attempts to stab Batman, can he turn the knife
back on the attacker? Is Batman not allowed to shoot somebody, even
if that person is about to kill an innocent party?
There is always a cry to “take comic
books more seriously,” to “perceive them as art,” to “perceive
them as adult.” That’s fine, but there have been dozens of comic
book movies now and sooner or later some filmmaker had to amp up the
realism to the point where audiences start to squirm. Snyder has
given us a Batman who is aware he is a criminal, but continues on in
the name of justice. Why is that an issue? Although this Batman does
appear to be willing to kill his enemies, this isn’t overtly
portrayed in the movie. Actually, after the backlash to “Man of
Steel” there is a lot of dialogue about how certain fights are
happening in “uninhabited areas.”
Personally, I find the cartoon nature
of the Avengers films to be boring. “Batman V Superman” has a lot
more I can sink my teeth into. Yes, there are some problems with this
film, I wasn’t a big fan of Jesse Eisenberg’s performance for
example. He lacked the physicality of the other leads, and had a
propensity for repeating his lines off into silence (blame the
director and writers there). Actually there are a couple little
narrative quirks like that which plague the film. Dream sequences are
used too frequently. The first scene of Wayne being lifted up by bats
is a divergence from the realism Snyder is otherwise determinedly
pursuing. I did like the other sequence, however, featuring Superman
and Batman soldiers. My other issue was the prevalence of cryptic
messages scrawled or painted on: Superman’s statue, Robin’s suit,
Newspaper clippings, and returned checks (all in the same handwriting
more or less).
Overall, however, I thought this was an
artistic film which was both ambitious and well-realized. It’s fun
to watch Luthor brainwash the two combatants. Also, this is the first
Batman film where Wayne gets a role as super detective (when he
sneaks around in Luthor’s mansion). I’m not sure who the figure
was leaning out of the computer monitor at him (at the end of the
future soldier sequence), but I think that scene suggests some of
Batman’s rage against Superman was the result of psychic
manipulation on the part of another meta human. The denouement the
Batman/Superman battle was well conceived. Wonder Woman was also
exceptionally well realized, and brought a shot of life (and humor)
into the movie.
The long and short of it is that there
is plenty in Batman V Superman that is worthy of sincere critical
discussion. I’m disappointed to think we live in a society where
all reviews are bought and paid for and serve only the purpose of
corporate agenda instead of overall greater human awareness and
understanding as sometimes seems to be the case.
