Batman v Superman is smarter than you think
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Scozzese — 9 years ago(December 03, 2016 10:46 PM)
http://comicbook.com/dc/2016/07/31/why-batman-v-superman-is-smarter-than-you-think-/
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is one film that may never stop being debated. Director Zack Snyder presented us with an event that many had long waited to see (Batman on the movie screen alongside Superman) but he did so according to his own unique vision - for better or worse. Seemingly the latter though, because since Batman v Superman hit theaters, it's suffered massive criticism for what is supposedly a convoluted and overly grandiose storyline.
Now the Batman v Superman: The Ultimate Edition is out, and debate has raged all over again. While the Ultimate Edition may not fix all of the problems with Batman v Superman's story, it does present a much bigger - and yet, more precise - thematic arc that arguably takes a gimmicky superhero team-up, and elevates into a soicio-political metaphor not only fit for the times, but eerily predictive of where things would soon be headed.
For the purposes of this discussion, we need to be clear: as far as I'm concerned, Batman v Superman: The Ultimate Edition is the only version of the movie worth discussing. Sure, people often try to argue that a "special edition" or "director's cut" of a film doesn't constitute the "real" version of the movie; that only the theatrical cut is considered canon. That may be a fair point, but I'm not here to argue canon. In evaluating Batman v Superman's merit as a smart cinematic work, I need the whole of Snyder and Co.'s vision, and not (as will be discussed later) what Warner Bros. cut together to sell in theaters.
So, from here on out, this discussion will be in reference to Batman v Superman: The Ultimate Edition. If you have not seen that version of the film, and find the theatrical cut to be so unforgivably bad that you can't give the film a second look, then there's nothing for us to discuss: you simply dislike this movie.
For those who have seen both versions, or are at least open to another interpretation of the film they saw, let's break this down.
The first thing to realize about Batman v Superman is that it's not just a comic book movie. This is not just a parable about how Batman and Superman came to respect another after having clashing ideas of what heroism is; that's certainly part of the story, but it's not the major thematic subtext which drives it. To understand the thematic narrative of Batman v Superman, one must first look back at Man of Steel.
Zack Snyder's Superman reboot was met with just as much controversy as Batman v Superman - particularly for its final act, in which the city of Metropolis is decimated in a battle between Superman and the Kryptonian militants led by General Zod. That "Battle of Metropolis" rattled and angered many viewers, who felt that Superman allowing such an excessive level of destruction in Metropolis was both uncharacteristic of his character, and in a larger sense, was a cinematic exploitation of Americans' post-9/11 fears. It was no surprise, then, to learn early on in Batman v Superman's development that the film would use the controversy over The Battle of Metropolis as the catalyst for its Batman vs. Superman conflict.
Many fans are able to discern Snyder's answer to his critics in BvS's story, but writer Chris Terrio's script is woefully underappreciated for how it takes the Battle of Metropolis 9/11 comparisons and extends them into a full-fledged socio-political commentary, as embodied by two of the biggest icons in Americana mythology. It plays like this:
Batman is the right-wing hawk reaction to 9/11. He represents an America that prefers security over civil liberties; the Bush-era mentality of stopping threats pro-actively before they can threaten close to home; He believes in severe (i.e., morally dubious) punishment of criminals; uses military grade hardware to casually annihilate enemy combatants; and the movie is none to shy about pointing out that Bruce Wayne belongs to the wealthy elite, while The Batman preys on the poor and destitute of Gotham. In short: Batman is the darker and more militant version of America, as scarred by the tragedy of 9/11. He is, as Alfred clearly states, the cruel end result of unchecked rage and feelings of powerlessness (like many felt after 9/11). Batman's actions - inspired by those feelings - end up starting as misguided a war as well, you get it.
Superman, on the other hand, isn't so much a character in the story as he is a symbol - and that symbol is of the more left-wing, liberal, American ideal. Superman represents the classic American ideas of hope, justice and morality for all people; he believes it is his job to police the world and protect the defenseless, no matter their nationality; and in his Clark Kent guise, he spends most of the film trying to defend the civil liberties of the criminal branded by The Batman - a person who, to Clark, represents the poverty and desperation behind Gotham's criminals, empathy that he faults Batman for not -
DennisReynolds — 9 years ago(December 03, 2016 10:55 PM)
I don't disagree that it has some stuff to say about the media and idealism versus cynicism and all that stuff. But when the guy starts blabbering about it being left versus right, he loses me. He's essentially just reading his own politics and political definitions into the movie.
| The
Five-Star
Man || The
Golden
God | -
fiero-49251 — 9 years ago(December 04, 2016 12:38 AM)
Thanks! Nice read! Decided to post to my blog!
http://www.childrenofrassilon.com/batman-forever.html
- Batman Homage
-
-
derjo201 — 9 years ago(December 04, 2016 02:20 AM)
The bottom line is that I do believe Batman v Superman is a much better movie than people are giving it credit for being -
but only in terms of its depth and ambition.
There are so much attempts to legitimate the disastrous script by constructing a psychological background. And it's just another pseudo-intellectual highfalutin talk. And another failure.
"Do you really think this is the first time I shot someone?" -
TheAstor — 9 years ago(December 13, 2016 08:57 PM)
It was written by Chris Terrio, who's an oscar winning writer. It is that deep.
http://www.astortheatre.net.au/
Support great cinemas. -
TheAstor — 9 years ago(December 13, 2016 09:05 PM)
For you.
http://www.astortheatre.net.au/
Support great cinemas. -
MasterOfBongFu — 9 years ago(December 04, 2016 11:14 AM)
There's the type of movie which is actually smart, and then there's the type of movie which is just designed to make dumb people think it's smart but smart people can see that it's actually just dumb.
-
Kyos — 9 years ago(December 05, 2016 01:50 AM)
The real point is: Lex is the businessman opportunist shark looking for personal gain by pitting two political ideologies against one another.
I would have probably appreciated a Lex like that. Looking at the whole thing though the Lex we got wasn't this Lex.
All in all I feel it doesn't really matter how much stuff one might interpret into this movie, and wether those interpretations match the intent of the filmmakers: if the characters and the story as presented are just not compelling people won't feel engaged enough to grasp for some deeper meaning behind them. -
deadpixel128 — 9 years ago(December 09, 2016 06:02 AM)
Not everyone has to agree with you. The article was grasping at straws and stretching things to an absurd degree.
If you can't defend a movie without bashing another, you will be put on ignore. No exceptions. -
Fluffis — 9 years ago(December 08, 2016 08:47 PM)
Nobody is questioning its ambition - that it doesn't even come
close
to reaching that ambition is part of what makes it a dumb movie.
It's like with
Sucker Punch
.
Enormous
amounts of ambition; but the execution is still
. That's what makes it a dumb movie.
Quidquid Latinae dictum sit, altum viditur.