A Look Back: MAN OF STEEL

In light of the less than stellar reviews of BATMAN V SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE, I think now is a good a time as any to look back at the first entry in the newly minted DCCU (DC Cinematic Universe), MAN OF STEEL. Despite it's own less-than-good critical placement, I come not to bury MoS, but to take a look at what worked, and what didn't. It's my hope to dig out the good from underneath the fiery rubble of the bad, and was there ever a large amount of the latter.

So, let's get the basics out of the way. MoS is a movie whose strength lies in its aesthetics. To be honest, that's essentially Zach Snyder's forte. He always creates visually striking films, regardless of whether or not they have the narrative chops to go along with them. For a film about Superman (or rather, Zach Snyder's version of Superman...more on that in a moment) would be remiss not to have moment to show off both the power and deft of movement of the titular character. There's moment in particular that stands out.

That moment is Superman's first flight. It's here that Snyder achieves the best scene of the movie (and maybe of his career), and truly shows his legitimate chops with visual storytelling. So much effective empathy is being conveyed that just thinking of it makes me a bit upset that the rest of the film couldn't reach the same levels of sheer joy. In this scene, he exits a large Kryptonian spacecraft and begins to truly push his powers to find his limits. There are leaps, first. As they grow larger and larger, you can see his face go from strain to real glee. At one point he gets extraordinarily high and can seem to help but laugh, and hoot, and holler. IT WORKS. We're brought into that head space with him. Up to this point, it had been clearly shown that Kal was conflicted about who he was and where he belonged (more on that a little later), and in this moment we see him truly opening up and using his natural abilities. For the first time, he's not worried about holding back, and so he's more comfortable than he's ever been. You can see that on his face. The culmination of this is when he finally takes flight, after all his unsuccessful attempts. He pushes himself, going faster and higher, until he's in orbit around the Earth. It's here that his place is taken from the metaphorical to the literal. In that image we, and he, and truly see that he is not of this world, but he's far more ok with that.

Now, beyond the purely visual aspects, it's clear there's a strong narrative undercurrent to that scene. It works because of what came before it, and plays off of those things as a sort of culmination. Unfortunately, the rest of the movie doesn't possess that same level of competence in storytelling. In fact, these narrative inconsistencies (not nitpicks, but major narrative roadblocks) are so numerous that I'm inclined to just list them:

• For nearly 2/3 of the movie, Superman makes a clear and honest effort to save people, whether they are kids on a bus, who some men on an oil rig, or some soldiers falling to their probable deaths. He even turns himself in to the Kryptonian forces that come for him, rather than the Earth be destroyed. So, most of this movie shows him to be this man who, regardless of the difficulty, will attempt to save and protect. Yet, during the biggest moment of the film, the siege upon the Earth by the Kryptonians, he seemingly goes against all of this. Rather than continuing to be who he was for the majority of the film, Superman decides to throw all caution to the wind and use the whole of the world around him to smash his foes. The major issue here is obviously the collateral damage, which runs counter to everything that is told of his character, up to that point.
• Tonally, Superman and Lois Lane kissing in the crater of much of Metropolis is extraordinarily tasteless. One could assume that hundreds, if not thousands, of people had died in a matter of moments. For the film to show us the massive scope of the destruction the Kryptonians dealt to the city, then to immediately have two of our leads have a completely unearned show of affection just seems to suggest that perhaps there was not as clear a vision on this as one would have hoped. 
• It's a peculiarity that Clark's father tells him that he will one day use his abilities to help people, only to then much later question his desire to leave the farm, citing that their whole family had farmers for years. Did he change his mind at some point on Clark using his abilities to help at some point? Even more, this seems like a wasted chance at a strong motivation for Superman to save people. The loss of his father prompting him to always do what he can to help others. Of course, this isn't at all what we get. 
• While Zod may be the antagonist in this film, his choice to terraform Earth to be more like Krypton and kill off all of humanity strike me as strange, given what we know of what happened to the Kryptonian colonies after Krypton's destruction: they all died out due to loss of resources. So, how exactly is Krypton supposed to rise again? There's no way to gather some of the same resources again. Zod speaks of going from outpost to outpost of the old Kryptonian colonies, but seeing they were dead from being cut off. Why do this plan at all?

Aside from these few massive ones, there are numerous smaller ones that jam up the production. Now, every film has some kinds of plot holes and contrivances. It's an inevitability due to the fact that we're only human. No matter how skilled a director, cinematographer, or editor you are, things will slip through the cracks. With MoS, we have something different. What we have is a product that is mostly focused on aesthetic and plot machinations. Really just the affectation of depth with none of the substance. It's ultimately that fact that brings down the whole of the film. 

The Way Forward for Warner Brothers

So, I can understand WB's desire to be separate from Marvel. It makes sense. Obviously, they are different companies putting out different properties, so having some sort of factor that differentiates the two is crucial. However, there's a major issue with the way they're going about it. They seem more focused on the tone and aesthetic rather than the qualities of their characters.

Now, I'm no expert on screenwriting, filmmaking, or how to run a movie studio. I've only worked on small projects, and I have this here blog that I write on. That being said, it seems clear that WB has not an iota of an idea about what really clicks with audiences. In one article, WB's executives were stated as saying they thought that BvS could really perform well financially and critically. Yet, they were shocked at the fact that audiences and critics didn't adore it. So, they were a bit stuck. Luckily, there seems to be a sort of light at the end of the tunnel.

In light of fan reactions to the SUICIDE SQUAD trailer, reshoots began to beef up the humor and character moments, most of which were apparently in the first trailer. This, at least, shows that WB has some inclination that people want characters they can like, even if they find them somewhat morally bankrupt. It seems there's some truth to Ebert's statement that films are "empathy machines." Films that really connect are films that get you to care about its characters. Just look at the critical and commercial success of DEADPOOL, an R-rated "superhero" film filled graphic violence and language that really put a focus on character. As a result, people REALLY liked DEADPOOL.

While the expression "character is king" isn't a hard and fast rule for screenwriting, it isn't a bad what to go about the whole enterprise. Hopefully, WB will be more open to that mindset regarding their DC films. There's nothing wrong with having bleak stories and aesthetics, but without fully fleshed-out characters, you've just got a lot of artifice with no substance. It's the equivalent of a kid playing dress-up.

Movie Review: BATMAN V SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE

***THERE ARE SPOILERS IN THIS***


The most interesting aspect of big summer blockbusters is how they prompt a unique sort conversation on cinema. In the case of BATMAN V SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE, that conversation has extended towards the basic mechanics of what makes a movie "work." Now, there's no real way to answer this without first remembering the subjective and ever expansive nature of art, though it contains a great deal of objectivity in the form of specific techniques, mechanics, and concepts. Basically, it's in one's best interest to keep an open mind with film and art. Different things will play in different ways to different people.

That's the mentality I took when approaching "BvS", one of sincere open-mindedness. Of course, I was aware of its less-than-stellar critical reception, but that didn't color my opinion of the film as I'm more than capable of forming one of my own. As it turned out, I didn't need the multitude of negative takes on the film to sway me, for the film earned it all on its own. It is, for lack of a better term, a mess. There's not one single thing that sinks the behemoth that is "BvS", but instead a menagerie: some small, some gargantuan.

Zach Snyder's latest takes place in a world 18 months forward from Superman's near-apocalyptic tussle with Micheal Shannon's General Zod. A battle which left quite a bit of collateral damage. It's this very collateral damage that fuels Ben Affleck's Bruce Wayne's anger and rage towards Superman, Also feeling this resentment is Jesse Eisenberg's Lex Luthor, and he devises a plot to have the two engage in combat to eliminate them both.

Now, here's the thing. That description certainly sounds straightforward. In fact, the basic elements actually are. Yet, the editing would lead you to believe otherwise. The totally disjointed first hour jumps from scene to scene with little-to-no regard for how they all fit together. There's no momentum, but instead plot points dropped into place in such a way that one would be forgiven for being unable to put them together in some sort of clear image. It's that lack of clarity that seems to have been carried over from Snyder's MAN OF STEEL, his first film with Henry Cavill's Superman.

Also carried over are some of the same issues with characterization present in Superman himself. Throughout "BvS" it seems we are meant to feel that this character is being unfairly disliked by the world, his character misjudged. A few scenes show him engaging in heroic acts: saving the crew of a rocket launch gone wrong; saving people from a burning building; rescuing people from a rooftop in the midst of a flood. He seems a savior, of sorts. Yet, in no moment during the film is it ever suggested that he wants to save anyone, excluding his girlfriend, Lois Lane, or mother, Martha Kent. In fact, the one moment in the film where Superman could explain his sullenness and his actions to the public (a hearing in Washington D.C. lead by a senator played by Holly Hunter, trying to breathe life into the film but being burned with the same terrible writing) he's stopped by an explosion that kills everyone in the building except for him. It's almost as though Zach Snyder, Chris Terrio, and David Goyer (the writers of this beast) decided it would be too hard to actually have one of their protagonists voice their motivations, so better to have everyone else do it instead. It's that very reluctance to character that drags down much of the film. There seems to be more of a concern with the iconography, either religious or in references to some of the defining/popular works of Batman and Superman, than actually filling characters with substance. What this does is create a character that is mostly unknowable to the audience which is a surefire way to not endear your viewers to them.

Thankfully, there is a light in this long, dark night. It's ironically in the hands of Batman. Ben Affleck's Batman feels, frankly like he's from an entirely different movie. One that doesn't yet exist, but is leagues better than "BvS". There is an actual sense of direction with his character, as his motivations are painfully obvious and his actions also flow from them. All of this is made better by Affleck's report with Jeremy Irons's Alfred, Bruce Wayne's faithful butler and technician. There's a real sense that they've been together for awhile, and so their playful ribbing comes off as sincere. Even more, The Batman has an unprecedented physical presence in the film. In one early appearance, he is discovered by police officers after beating down some human traffickers and, in his escape, looks as though he's some sort of demon soaring from corner to corner on the ceiling until he explodes out of the window. Even as the civilian persona, Bruce Wayne, Affleck pours in a healthy mixture of sleaze and charisma, especially with Gal Gadot's Diana Prince/Wonder Woman.*

Unfortunately, even the Caped Crusader isn't immune from Snyder's "gritty, grounded" touch. The same kinds of narrative and emotional shortcuts are present. At one point he attaches a tracking device to a truck containing kryptonite, seemingly in order to find out where it's going, then he proceeds to chase it with the Batmobile anyway, seemingly killing 95% of the people he was chasing. The real kicker is that he was going to steal the kryptonite off of the ship it came on, so why even attach the tracking device in the first place? There's an extended dream sequence (?) that shows what seems to be a possible future where Superman is ruling the Earth. Batman is a freedom fighter of some sort. This is never brought up again, and seems to only exist to introduce Darksied in the most obscure way possible. Even more, he proceeds to show Batman's origin yet again, as though it hasn't been shown before. This time, it's a shot-for-shot retelling of his parent's death from THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS, Frank Miller's seminal work that Snyder scavenged for elements of this Batman. In fact, it's this act that results in one of the most asinine moments ever put to screen. In the climax of the titular fight, before stabbing Superman through the chest with a kryptonite-tipped spear (!), Superman cries out that they have to "Save Martha!" Who's Martha? Why that's Superman's mother, remember? Guess what Bruce's mother was named.

Martha.

This is treated as a revelation so shocking to Batman that he renigs his original 18 MONTH LONG plan and vendetta against Superman. All of the taunting and mild torture he just put him through, including insulting his mother (!!!) is thrown aside due to their mothers sharing the same name. It's so idiotic as to almost be brilliant in a they'll-never-expect-this sort of way.

Yet, somehow, Jesse Eisneberg's Lex Luthor manages to be the singularity at the center of this black hole of a movie. His character is a trainwreck of terrible writing and lack of any real motivation. I can honestly say that I don't really know who his character is or why he does what he does. He hates Superman. Ok. Because of the destruction he was part of. Ok. And because Lex hates God. Ok? And because he reminds him of his abusive father. Wait, what? And because Lex has "knowledge without power." Huh? This is the character we're given.

Amy Adams gives a good performance as Lois Lane but, once again, her character simply exists to give the half-cocked Superman a reason to do anything. Frankly, this whole business of taking great performers and giving them garbage writing is depressing. **

It's curious that this movie exists. The story of a rich and powerful man against a literal illegal alien, but in this case, the rich and powerful man is right to be sceptical of the alien. Is this what Zach Snyder intended with this film? Is it some sort of broken half-commentary on the times we live in? Doubtful. What it can be seen as is some of the absolute worst the pre/summer blockbuster season can offer. Draped and adorned with self-importance, but lacking the substance to make that a reality. The plot contrivances stretch and choke all life out of this picture, so entangled with the plotting and the characterizations that to pull on one thread threatens to unravel the whole thing.

I don't like writing this. In fact, it pains me to do so. Growing up with both Batman and Superman, I've seen them in a variety of styles and stories. In some, both have been actual Gods. In others, the scourges of the Earth. The point I'm making is that there exists a long, and rich history for both characters, so the fact that Snyder and Co. chose this path is downright bizarre. Critics have spoken. More and more audiences are speaking. It seems this film won't make as much as they hoped. Perhaps this will show them that what people want are characters that they can get to know, whether they are likable or not. Whether the mood is dark or light.

*Addendum 1: The fact that I hardly spoke about Wonder Woman is a representation of just how unimportant she was to this movie. She was, essentially, part of a trailer for their other films that was crudely worked into the whole of the picture.

**Addendum 2: At one point, Lois Lane says to a warlord she's attempting to interview "I'm not a lady. I'm a journalist." Garbage.