Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice is a movie that exists in a weird place between nerd culture and popular culture. It is a reaction to the modern absorption of nerd culture, and it is in this weird in between space that the movie succeeds the most, but that's also why the movie has been critically such a failure (currently a 29% on Rotten Tomatoes).
Nerd culture's, and especially comic books', rise to prominence over the last few decades has been pretty clear. From the biggest box office hits being Superhero movies (and Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter) to television being jam packed with Superhero shows to Netflix and Pay per View making huge series based on superheroes (or Game of Thrones), everything right now is filled with comic book characters. Even more so, the big success stories here aren't the big names in comics, but more obscure ones. Once Marvel decided to take matters into their own hands, the heroes they picked were not huge, pop culture icons (excepting Captain America, though we'll get to him in a bit). It may be hard to believe now that Marvel immediately makes everyone think of Robert Downey Jr., but Iron-man, Thor, Black Widow, and the rest of the movie Avengers were not big names in Marvel. They were for comic book readers, but not for the general populace.
Pop culture latched on to a few characters. Ignoring Batman and Superman for a minute, the next biggest is probably Spiderman. His story really resonated when he first was introduced. But, just like Batman and Superman, there's a big divide between his nerd and pop personas. Since his 1962 debut, Spiderman has spent the majority of his time as an adult married to Mary Jane Watson, who is fully aware of his alternate identity. Yet in pop culture, he is an eternal student, trying to juggle his superheroics with his love life.
Other superheroes have made the crossover without much change. Wonder Woman and the X-Men are all part of American culture in a major way. The X-men are relatively the same, seeing as they were reinvented in the 80s by Claremont, which is the version everybody knows, and they didn't have much time before the Fox movies started adapting them. Singer's X-Men stick pretty close to their source, so there isn't a lot of divide there. Wonder Woman had the Lynda Carter tv show, but for the most part, I think beyond the fact that everybody knows she's a comic book character, her pop culture persona is feminist icon.
The big two of comics are Batman and Superman, since the late 30s. So much about them has entered the public consciousness in a way that few other Superheroes have. Their design, both as a character and as a illustration, have become so iconic and basic that they color everything about the genre. Even within comics, superheroes are often referred to as "capes" when there are very few superheroes with a cap that do not have "Bat" or "Super" prefixes in front of their names. I'd be hard pressed to name a superhero created in the last 50 years who wears one. But the Platonic ideal of a superhero definitely does.
The divide between Batman's personas is deep and outlined far better than I ever could in Glen Wheldon's excellent book, the Caped Crusade. The "true" Batman is a source of much contention, and even such basic rules as "he doesn't kill" seem to be up for debate with very serious fans. Is there more to the character than the name? That's probably a question for another post, but I sometimes wonder how people can reconcile such different takes on the character.
But where Batman's different personas are well known, to the point where I think most people are aware of it, Superman is just as split, but less publicized. So many people "don't like the character" for all kinds of reasons that break down under examination. He's no more powerful than any other comic book character, given the number of times everybody dies and returns. He's not infallible, a characteristic that gets attributed to him often, yet of the Justice League, I think his only rival for number of times screwing up is the Flash. And he really isn't a jingoistic, American governmental stooge (at least excepting Frank Miller, but why I really dislike Dark Knight Returns is another post). In fact, Superman and Captain America share many of the same misconceptions and character traits. And Marvel did a great job turning Cap's reputation away from propaganda and into one of the more popular heroes in pop culture right now. Chris Evan's certainly helped. DC obviously was aware of the issue, but was so ham-handed in handling the issue that it blew up in their faces. They wanted Superman to be so divorced from the "government stooge" role that they turned him into the Punisher, destroying everything between him and the bad guy.
Superman really can't go gritty, because that's so contrary to the character. That's not to say he can't explore dark themes or true horrors, but he can't be the character of a grimdark 90s comic with Deathblade, War Child, Bloodgasm or whoever (note, I don't know if those are all real characters from the 90s, but it wouldn't surprise me). Just like his profession, Superman needs to be a character that brings light to evil. It's why Luthor is such an effective foil to him, a man who's power comes not from inner strength, but social connections and manipulations. Superman stands up for the little guy against the corporations, organizations, or other networks that promote oppression. But the movies miss this because the modern superhero formula is a broken hero who is plagued with self-doubt and remorse.
And that's where we come to BvS. A movie with two title characters, one that nobody can agree on what he represents and another that represents something the producers thinks is boring and doesn't exist anymore. This movie is brought into a world flush with Marvel movies. Marvel movies are made to formula, true, but it's the Marvel formula. The stories are so similar on a point by point level because it is the universe that all of these characters are designed to exist in. The Marvel universe isn't gritty, its just full of coincidence and angst. On top of that, the movies do a great job of capturing things about the characters and presenting them. Cap is a dreamer plagued by realism, Thor is hotheaded, Ironman is the world's smartest idiot. Not only do we have a baseline for quality (I'd say they consistently sit in the B range, some even hitting A-), but we also have characters that, due to their relative obscurity, aren't fighting their own public image and aren't something we've seen a lot before (I'm curious about Spiderman in the new movie, as he does go against this).
Let's compare before pictures of Antman and BvS. Antman also has a troubled history with comics fan, being most famous for abusing his wife, but also for being a persona that a lot of people have used. Before that movie came out, the general opinions being voiced were:
1. Antman, the character, sucks
2. How can the handle him faithfully when he's a wife beater
3. Nobody cares about any of the other Antmen
Marvel handled all of these really well. First, they acknowledged that he sucks and made his ineptitude a source of humor and growth in the movie. Next, they just sidestepped the wife beating issue. Finally, they made you care about the other Antman by writing a script that made you care about him. Notice that the last two are both solved by going more obscure, taking a character with even less of a reputation in the popular consciousness.
Meanwhile, BvS was dealing with all sorts of complaints brought about by using popular characters. First off, the instant you cast Batman, everybody hates your decision. That's just how it works, so the movie was fighting that group from the beginning. Secondly, as discussed, everybody has a different opinion about Batman and Superman, with a wide range of how informed they are, and yet are very protective of this opinion. Third, Zach Snyder makes a particular kind of movie and many people don't think he's best suited for DC and especially Superman, seeing as Superman shouldn't be gritty. Fourth, Batman fighting Superman is the classic superhero fight and we've seen it many, many times before. All of these problems caused by taking well known characters and not really doing anything with them. So many people had already decided the movie would be terrible by the time it came out. Critics of popular movies, especially comic book movies, are sort of forced to consider the zeitgeist when reviewing them. Film critics are more educated in the nature of film (hopefully), see more movies than the average person (presumably) and can't just review a film based on personal, gut instinct. Nobody will keep reading a reviewer who slams every popular movie. Instead, they need to consider a range of factors, from target audience to factoring in their own pretensions. And when a movie as big, but with a built in hate base, as BvS comes along, they often give voice to those negative opinions.
And why not? It is a messy movie that needed to have the script tightened up, scenes cut, plotlines removed, a stronger sense of what it actually was about. It's less boring than last years terrible Fan4stic but frankly, it doesn't feel all the different otherwise. But then, they all feel the same unless you know the characters, that's what Marvel has done. And BvS tries to stray from that cookie cutter (and doesn't really succeed too well), but you know the characters, so it ends up feeling like a failed Marvel movie
On the other hand, it gets a lot right. The casting is good, the actual plot, while poorly presented, is a solid comic book movie plot that could have had a really solid reveal and surprise. I don't particularly care for what they had Batman do or become, but those are specifics. In general, it was decent. To some nerds, it was even really good. But to a lay person, it probably really is a mess.
Like this review, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is an unfocused, poorly editted mess that can't quite seem to figure out what the point is, but is really steeped in knowledge of the characters, their history, and their interactions. Also like this review, there will certainly be tie in and sequel installments. Look for a How I'd Fix It and an actual review of the movie coming soon.
Film grade: C-
No comments:
Post a Comment