***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.
No comments:
Post a Comment