Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

Zack Snyder’s Man of Steel (2013) has been the subject of much debate amongst fans of the iconic fictional hero Superman. In his classic characterisation that has survived for so long, Superman boldly stands for truth, justice and righteousness. Man of Steel has started a franchise that portrays a darker version of the character. While many believe this is a betrayal of Superman and what he stands for, others have argued that an updated version of Superman should reflect society for what it is and not what we wish it to be. Zack Snyder’s Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice delves greatly into the philosophical arguments it poses regarding the series’ portrayal of Superman.

People in the past have argued that Superman is too powerful to be a hero, and that he would be more accurately presented if he were evil. This is untrue. Superman is the embodiment of ideals. The sheer scope of his powers illustrates the strength of these ideals, which can only be benevolently represented if Superman refrains from using them for evil methods. Superman is a representation of good that we can look up to, to inspire us of the best we can become. Therefor, the real challenges he must overcome are ethical ones rather than physical ones. While this is the general principle, it is not to say Superman can’t fail when it comes to ethical decisions or always find solutions that are ethically pleasing, and sometimes they can affect his character in one way or another.

Zack Snyder’s run on the film series takes this in a different direction. In Man of Steel, young Clark Kent saves a bus full of children and his father tells him off for it, saying he should have “Maybe.” let the children die, and as the film goes on Clark causes numerous counts of property damage and endangers people’s lives, though it could be argued that the villains of the film are more directly responsible for any collateral damage that happens. The ending was controversial, arguably having this iteration of Superman earn his value for life rather than possess it innately. In a way, it portrays Superman as a more human character progressing towards his image of a symbol.

Batman v Superman takes its subject matter to a much harsher tone. One segment of the film shows Superman doing things that would normally be associated with him like appearing around the world to rescue people from disasters and saving the day. During this segment, the film poses discussions surrounding how good Superman can actually be. The idea of Superman presented as a metaphor for Jesus has been played around with in the past, but the film puts heavy emphasis on themes surrounding the nature of God and whether or not Superman is objectively a Christ-figure. These themes take up much of the film.

Ultimately, the film drops any ambiguity and argues that absolutes cannot exist, which in regard to the real world is an understandable view. Often times, virtue and morals aren’t as simple as black and white. Superman may be a paragon of goodness but that in no way means he doesn’t have a dark side that comes out under extreme circumstances. The problem is the way the film handles this argument. It tries to enforce this idea that by doing good, Superman inflicts negative consequences on others. That is an illogical moral to put upon one’s audience.

The main premise of the story is a conflict between the heroes Batman and Superman (Ben Affleck and Henry Cavill, respectively) orchestrated by billionaire criminal mastermind Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg), which seemingly has very little connection to the themes that this review has focused on so far. A big problem with the buildup to the fight is there is far too little development between the heroes. They meet a grand total of two times before they fight, one of which in their superhero personas, an exchange that can be summed up with:

SUPERMAN: “Don’t pick a fight.”

BATMAN: “No.”

Superman flies away.

It’s clear the two have varying views on morality and how they execute justice. One sets out to save lives out of the goodness of his heart, while the other uses morally compromising methods to bring criminals in. The appeal of a Batman vs. Superman scenario isn’t just Batman spraying Superman with Kryptonite to even the odds. It’s the development that comes from their differing moralities, views and actions leading to their conflict. In the film however, Bruce Wayne simply decides that Superman is his enemy, and most of the buildup is the process by which Batman obtains a supply of Kryptonite to fight with. One of Bruce Wayne’s lines in the movie is, “If there is even a 1% chance that he is our enemy, we have to take it as an absolute certainty.” That is a contradiction.

Batman’s mental state in the comics has been brought into question, and for some time arguments have been made that Batman is classified as an antihero rather than a superhero. The film seems to play around with the idea of Batman’s psychosis through dream sequences and the character’s obsession, which Affleck portrays well with range from sad and somber to intensely determined. In the film, Batman’s motivation is that Superman’s power intimidates him or can be seen as a potential threat. Batman is supposed to be a logical thinker, yet instead of creating a deterrent to keep in reserve against Superman in the unlikely event they do become enemies, he sets out to murder him. As the series portrays a darker version of Superman, it also portrays a darker version of Batman, having him deny he was ever not a criminal and even branding criminals’ skins. The problem is Batman is already a dark character, at least being portrayed as darker in recent films, and performing such extremes is blowing this iteration of the character way out of proportion.

Superman himself is a little underwhelming. Since we’re never given time to know Superman’s personality in the first film, and no time in given in this film to reveal anything new other than a sense of duty, it’s a little hard to get invested in his character. It’s not until something dire affects him personally that he begins to appear interesting.

With darker versions of both our heroes, the film gives us a lighter twist on our main villain, a young Lex Luthor. This character’s eccentricity makes him possibly the most enjoyable part of the movie, seeing as how much Superman and Batman are sticks in the mud. Lex Luthor is usually portrayed as a devious, confident and collected man with a sick charm. Jesse Eisenberg manages to appear generally jovial, sometimes bratty and even awkward, and yet still comes off as foreshadowing and intimidating. Lex Luthor is known for placing his opponents in unwinnable situations, and the movie’s version provides as such. Even as an eccentric youth, Lex Luthor may actually be the most faithfully adapted character in the film.

Generally speaking, the actors are good for their roles, especially the leads Henry Cavill, Ben Affleck and Jesse Eisenberg. Gal Gadot gives an acceptable performance as Wonder Woman, though she appears so scarcely in the film that it’s hard to make a fair assessment. Ben Affleck’s effort into his emotional performance as Bruce Wayne is a refreshing change from that of Christian Bale in Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight trilogy.

The character and visual design is somewhat hit and miss. Batman’s default costume is nice and simplistic and the armour he dons for his fight with Superman is dynamic and imposing. No real fault there. We live in a time where superhero movies, once bright and optimistic, have become darker and grim, which is commonly reflected in the colours. This film is no exception. Too often the images onscreen, the costumes and settings, are unattractive to look at – sometimes the images are so dark that they’re hard to see. Even Superman’s costume is so dark that it has no chance of standing out. Wonder Woman has a fairly recognised costume, and the special effects used to create Doomsday make him an absolute monster.

Speaking of which, why is Wonder Woman in this movie? She appears a few times in the film, but her only real contribution is to the final battle against Doomsday. Her involvement in this movie, which doesn’t involve her in the title or the premise, and the appearance of other “metahumans” from the DC universe, is systemic of why Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice exists: it is a quick way of getting to the Justice League movie.

Apart from but not excluding the overall story, the film is not especially well written. There are a few examples of clichéd dialogue – in one instance repeating a clichéd line from the first movie – and some of the jokes, however funny they may be, are plot holes. Lois Lane (Amy Adams) starts off useful as an investigator (displaying better detective skills than Batman, it would seem), but becomes a nuisance in the end by having her contributions backfire and resulting in her needing to be rescued. Then there’s the implication that Batman’s cowl is evidently bulletproof from point blank range, and yet his costume is vulnerable to knives. The product placement isn’t as bad as in Man of Steel, but they still wrote a scene where Lois Lane bathes nude in a dingy apartment just so they can advertise Olay. The film repeats Batman’s origin story, the key word being ‘repeat’, because audiences are already aware of Bruce Wayne’s tragic back-story. It’s common knowledge. It seems a superfluous scene when we can just as easily absorb the information of his parents’ death through his visiting their graves, and in much less time than in a slow motion montage sequence.

And then there’s the fight itself between Superman and Batman. A major appeal for audiences of Man of Steel was that it brought hard-hitting and destructive action, which is satisfying to see in film given the scope of Superman’s powers and is something we haven’t seen before with such intensity. Batman has some action scenes beforehand, one in particular a chase scene involving the Batmobile, which draws into question how serious he is about not killing, given the wanton destruction he causes. The fight itself between Batman and Superman is good. The location where it takes place isn’t so impressive, but it is engaging to see how the opponents turn the tables on each other throughout. Though again, while the action is itself engaging, the investment in this fight is tempered by how it has been set up. Superman initially tries to ask Batman to help him. Batman springs a couple of traps on him, which have no effect, and instead of continuing his attempt to reason with him, Superman immediately uses physical force on him and escalates the situation. More fundamental an issue is how little we know about Superman in this series and in this film in particular compromises the investment in the conflict. The resolution to the fight is lazily executed through a revelation, which is possibly playing again to Batman’s psychosis, but, in terms of the story at large, has no connection. The following fight with Doomsday is arguably better, having the heroes work together and showing off how monstrously Doomsday rivals Superman with superhuman speed, strength, amplified heat beams and near-indestructability. If you think the review is giving anything away, it isn’t. The trailers already gave it away. The fight has nothing much to do with the story at large, having it simply be Lex Luthor’s contingency plan in the event that Batman doesn’t kill Superman. Nonetheless, it is a great rush of wanton violence.

A Batman vs. Superman film has been anticipated for over a decade. This was at a time when superhero movies were only beginning to be taken more seriously than they had been in the decade before, and we have since gotten many serious superhero movies that, while not always perfect, are almost universally loved by fans for their visual and dramatic appeal. Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice takes itself far too seriously. It is far too dark both visually and in its characterisations, and the story focuses too heavily on spelling out its themes rather than developing what is important to why these two beloved icons should be fighting. Even accepting an ethically challenged Superman such as in Man of Steel, the sequel is grossly mean-spirited.

It can be somewhat difficult to differentiate one’s personal preference regarding the representation of Superman, and in this case Batman too, from what is genuinely negative about the representation itself. The ingredients are there in the original character to make a darker version, but this series and this film in particular puts so much emphasis on making the characters themselves darker rather than creating a darker tone to surround or challenge them, so much so that it makes the experience unpleasant. There are plenty of superheroes and fictional characters in general that reflect the world realistically. That is not what Superman or Batman’s characters are about. They are different representations of good and of morality conveyed through heroism. Of course, ideals can be challenged, and that is by no means a bad subject matter for Superman. But the way in which they are represented, the way in which this story is told, does not do them justice. And no amount of amazing action scenes can make up for that.