Skip to main content

Nobody cares about Clark Kent taking on the Batman.

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
(2016)

(SPOILERS) You probably need to be sufficiently invested in the DC Universe in the first place to truly care about its cinematic desecration. Or even notice it. Much has already been said, and continues to be said – far more than any right-minded person can or should keep up with – over the past week about Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, how it defecates all over the legacy of Superman and isn’t even really doing Batman many favours, but that’s rather beside the point. Zach Snyder’s movie doesn’t fail because of its take on these iconic characters; it fails because it’s an abject mess in its approach to basic storytelling. 


For a while there, before Batman and Superman engage in their less than titanic tussle, I was beginning to think Snyder and screenwriters Chris Terrio and David Goyer were going for something almost admirable in its flagrant disregard for convention; a two hour-plus movie composed entirely of two-minute (or less) scenes with virtually nothing to connect them. Perhaps this was to be the superheroic equivalent of Godfrey Reggio’s Qatsi trilogy? Alas, they eventually confound any illusions of eccentric artistry by reverting to something that does, sort-of, make sense. The chief problem, however, is that, amid this carnage wreaked upon narrative structure, they maintain one element of consistency; BvS is never in danger of becoming a good movie.


Which isn’t to say I have particularly passionate feelings pro or con about the movie. The complete picture turns out to be precisely as it was the trailers, only spread over 150 minutes. The problem is, trailers are supposed not to tell a story; they’re simply there to provide the appetiser for one. If you try and tantalise audiences for any longer, you’ll likely end up with unpalatable mush. I didn’t come away feeling there was very much actively terrible about BvS, but neither did I feel there was very much actively great about it. And what’s in between constitutes its biggest sin; it’s determinedly dull. Incredibly pretty (well, when it’s not focusing on Doomsday, seemingly the spawn of Alien Resurrection’s newborn and thus a design feat no one should be boasting about), but incredibly boring.


Shilly-shallying with a plot summary isn’t really necessary, but the manner in which Snyder et al have reverse-engineered the negative reaction to Supes’ Man of Steel destruction derby and made it the focus of the sequel is perversely impressive (no, no, Goyer and Snyder planned it all along). And then, as some would have it, they go even further, so compounding their earlier transgressions. 


It has been suggested this Superman, off-beam (and don’t those laser eyes chafe so?) from his traditionally selfless mode of oozing virtue from every pore, is a reflection of Snyder’s fascination with Ayn Rand, and his (presumed) concordant belief that those who achieve through devout selfishness should be justly rewarded (as such, when Superman acts selflessly, he must die, and maybe come back as a monster). Or maybe Superman is merely a symbol for modern America, doing what he thinks is right and being vilified for it (but one day, one day, everyone will see the truth). Or maybe Snyder just hates Superman, which seems to be the most vocal conclusion reached.


I’m not quite sure how to gauge that, as I don’t really know – or sufficiently care, truth be told –  enough about the line being crossed with this depiction. Which is to say, it’s not as if Batman could be considered well hung here either. Indeed, I was marvelling throughout at – given some of the pre-viewing criticism I’d dipped into – how much better Superman came across than Batfleck. I mean, the former may not have been on the best of form, or awarded a welter of cool moments, but neither did he come across as a tunnel-visioned moron.


Perhaps you have to be American to really get behind Superman. A paragon of virtue isn’t really a good fit for the nation that brought the world Terry-Thomas, the ultimate cad and frightful-est bounder. I’m certainly one of those who was never remotely taken with the character, which might be why I liked the Reeve incarnation most when he was put on a back foot (made human in Superman II) or had to duke it out with his dark side (Superman III). Or when you wheel on a charismatic (English) villain to give the whole enterprise a bit of pep (tell him Terence Stamp is fucking coming!)


Henry Cavill’s fine as Superman – although he’d be better as Bond – and there are more decent Superman scenes in the movie than there are Batman ones, although there are more decent Wonder Woman scenes than there are decent scenes for either of the headliners, so she definitely rules the roost (that at least is one in the eye for those complaining about Gal Gadot’s casting and her general lack of Lynda Carter-ness).


I liked Superman’s heroic montage as he rescues floundering rockets and idiots genuflect before his perceived messianic purity. I liked his turning up at the Committee hearing, unrecalcitrant. I liked when he was blown up by a nuclear warhead, hanging emaciated in space. And I (well, not completely, but at least it was him rather than Batman) liked his final self-sacrifice (although I have no idea how Clark Kent’s going to explain away not being dead; perhaps he’ll wake up in a shower. Of which, showing its influences, Man of Steel-sort-of-not-II invites unflattering comparisons by aping Star Trek II’s funereal bagpipes). But there is an underlying sense that making him a moody sod limits the palate the DC cinematic Universe has to play with. You miss Reeve’s essential affability (and Cavill can do affable – in The Man from U.N.C.L.E. he’s one long affable).


Added to which, Superman doesn’t necessarily come across as all that bright. I know movies and TV have to consistently pull the trope of the hero’s dilemma, the choice between the one they love and the greater good, but Luther kidnapping Clark’s mum is so hackneyed, he really should have contemplated and planned his response to such an inevitable eventuality.


But however dense Supes is, Batfleck is doubly so. And then some. People seem to have taken to Ben’s incarnation of the Caped Crusader, so maybe this won’t leave him with Gigli all over his face, but it’s not through want of the screenwriters trying. I don’t for one moment buy into Wayne’s grim motivation to have at Superman (which maybe why Alfred – a decent Jeremy Irons – is so dismissive of his intentions). You can at least see why Superman would be in a bit of a turmoil (if he wasn’t more than a mere mortal and above such things), but the attempts to steer Batman towards the status of ever-branding bad guy fail to connect, no matter how many times the movie rehearses the death of his parents and has him ramble on darkly about what he has to do.


Everything about Bat-Bruce’s goal here makes him look like the biggest chump ever, be it his “If there’s a one-per-cent chance” desire to make sure the Man of Steel doesn’t get the option of going bad, to his training montage with really BIG weights, to his leading Doomsday back into the city at the climax (they even have to insert a line clarifying that he isn’t doing exactly what Superman was guilty of in Man of Steel; the showdown takes place on highly fortuitous disused dockland, so that’s okay), to his bizarre turnabout on hearing his dearly beloved ma’s name (the effect is as rampantly ridiculous as the cry of “Cleaning woman!” in Dead Men Don’t Wear Plaid). And, while Affleck’s personification of Bruce Wayne as a playboy cocksman is moderately entertaining, having the hots for Wonder Woman and all, they definitely missed a trick not having him hit on Superman’s mum.


All that said, Batman in action here is far, far cooler than anything Bat-related we’ve seen on the big screen over the past quarter of a century. We’ve gone from a director (Burton) with no facility for bat-tle, to ones (Schumacher and Nolan) who appreciated it but tended to suck all the coherence out of it. You have to go all the way back to Adam West wrestling a shark for anything of this order. It’s just a shame what’s on display is in the service of such tepid material (there’s a huge car chase at one point, and you’re left unmoved, not because it’s hard to follow but because there’s no engagement with its purpose or intent).


But. I did enjoy the Lex party scene, with everyone in their civvies up to their own investigative work (although as has been pointed out, if Superman can eavesdrop with his super-hearing why not use his x-ray vison too – probably because you run out of things to do with a character with no limits very quickly). 


Of which, I’m torn on Luthor. Jessie Eisenberg is supremely punch-able, but then that’s the point. I half-liked what he was doing, but he needed more of the genius thing going on to counterbalance the m-m-m-mental rich kid (presumably his being m-m-m-mental is the excuse for why he doesn’t just expose the trio’s identities to the world?). We only really glimpse a proper display of smarts when he is birthing Doomsday. I seriously doubt Bryan Cranston in his stead would have been the night and day difference in making the picture work that much better.


The dawning of justice? Well, Gadot undoubtedly has star power, you can tell as much because her role mostly amounts to giving knowing looks and she still makes an impact. Diana Prince and her alter-ego get off lightly, I suspect, simply because they aren’t around for long enough to take a knock in terms of character or motivation. None of the others DoJ-ers make much of an impression, in their brief snippets, although Ezra Miller is inspired superhero casting (and yet, I had no idea he was future-Flash-in-red in Bruce’s dream). Joe Morton was evidently cast as a reference to his T2 scientist, while Neil deGrasse Tyson whores himself out again, but to diminishing returns in the wake of Zoolander 2.


Debates will continue to rage over just what DC is doing to its icons, even if that amounts to little more than making the grim-smart Batman grimmer still but also wholly dumber with it, and the stalwart-and-true Superman ever more introverted and less honest-and-open. But – and it’s not such a cop-out in terms of finding little to wail and gnash teeth over – was this ever going to be anything other than a display of dour, over-stuffed, incontinent posturing? Its consequences of audience interpretation feel more the result of dramatic ineptitude and tonal misjudgement than manifest intent (and I suspect that’s true even of Superman, no matter what his most ardent adherents have to say against Snyder’s dark-seedings). The fallout of which can already be seen in the backtracking on the DC Universe’s love affair with tortured seriousness and the post-Deadpool embrace of (likely short-lived) anything-goes-as-long-the-audience-think-it’s-something-different (which definitely won’t be the R-rated cut of BvS).


Mostly though, I was left feeling profoundly indifferent towards the movie. You can only do so much baiting if you haven’t hooked the audience in the first place. That’s – largely – why Marvel has been on such a winning streak. They’re past masters at getting the balance right. I’m not interested in the multiple Superman and Batman flashbacks, or the extended interlude of Darkseid dreams – which may or may not, more likely not, given Warner Bros already appear to be lightening up Suicide Squad, come to pass (that said, unless they’re planning on a Highlander-esque relationship between Superman and his Blossom, Lois Lane, decade-older-than-Cavill Amy Adams will surely be compelled by the Hollywood law of averages to exit before long). They end up as a string of narrative non-sequiturs.


In many respects, the highlight of Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is Hans Zimmer and Junkie XL’s score, which consistently offers an distinctive diversion, so directly contrasting with the onscreen action, from the harpsichord accompanying Luthor’s aberrant activities to Wonder Woman’s rousing electric cello. To wit the latter (Wonder Woman, not the rousing electric cello), if nothing else, the clash of DC’s top two has ensured an appetite for her solo debut, so that’s one thing the movie gets kudos for. There won’t be many coming its way for anything else.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds . Juno and the Paycock , set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.