Exactly, which is why the film goes out of its way to show that Superman does everything in his power to avoid coming to blows with Batman, and Batman only is convinced blows are necessary through a combination of external manipulation and PTSD clouding his judgment.
The film asserts that Batman is a hero who has been retraumatized by the Black Zero event and the sum total of two decades of failures and losses. We're shown that grief, tragedy, loss, and failure has turned a good man cruel. Given this context, Batman's actions are far from contrived. Superman, on the other hand, is presented as naive yet still committed to his mission as Superman. He saves people, he investigates abuses of power, and he complies with government investigations. Superman is asserted to be someone whose greatest weakness is his emotional attachments, and this is exactly what Lex exploits. Even so, Superman never seriously executes a plan to use violence to solve his problems. He finds hope in those he loves, and he only fights Batman in self defense.
Batman and Superman are presented as empathetic, in my view. I empathize with Bruce's trauma: the fear, anxiety, and depression that has caused him to lose control of his judgment and even sanity. He's spent twenty years watching everything he's tried to achieve come to nothing. He's lost friends. He was powerless to save his people at Wayne Enterprises in Metropolis when Zod attacked. Do I agree with him? No, but there's nothing about Bruce's feelings or actions that I do not feel for or understand.
Superman is far from a cypher. He's an alien -- an other -- who is still working out his own identity, but he's also struggling with the mutability of public opinion. He wants to do good and tries to do good, but it never seems to come without a price. And no matter how many times he saves people, he still is not trusted. In those circumstances, he clings to those who love him and truly know him. He investigates Batman because he sees in him someone who is giving heroes like himself a bad name. He cares about powerful men abusing their power. More than anything, I can empathize with Superman's discouragement. The despair that can seep in when the good you do is unappreciated, or worse, misinterpreted. I empathize with his frustration with having power while also having to apply that power with restraint and humility lest people fear or hate you. I empathize with how challenging it can be to stay true to yourself when the things that mean most to you in this world are at risk.
A point that I love and find utterly compelling. I love the idea that even with their ideological differences, Batman and Superman do not have it in themselves to actually fight. I love the suggestion that conflict between two heroes who should by all rights be allies and friends must be manipulated by men of privilege and power in order to reach the point of violent conflict. Because that is a concept that is so real to me. There are so many disparate groups in this world with common interests who would be best served by working together to achieve progressive goals, but there are powerful entities who use their power to stoke fear and hate in order to maintain the status quo. For example, politicians often use fear to win elections, start wars, or justify a crackdown on civil liberties.
Poorly related? He was raised by an abusive father who taught him to fear tyrants. Lex is a brilliant, powerful, and wealthy man who uses his intelligence, power, and wealth to maintain control. The existence of Superman threatens Lex's sense of control and security. He's someone whose power and goodness challenge Lex because Lex cannot equal him. Lex projects onto Superman both his hatred for his father and his hatred for a god who failed to save him. Typically, Lex Luthor despises Superman and seeks to destroy him because he believes himself to be humanity's true Superman. He believes humanity is threatened by superior beings from other worlds. He's a true Ubermensch. DCEU Lex is hardly cut from a different cloth.
It is trite to kidnap someone a hero loves to generate conflict, but given what we know about Superman in this universe, it is the only play that makes sense. It is also a creative decision that links Batman and Superman together -- creates empathy -- in a way that allows the film to explore how love, empathy, and connection can resolve conflict. Superman chooses to face Batman because he wanted to believe that there was something in Batman that was still good. He was not proven wrong. Superman was told that if he was caught in the act of saving his mother, then she was as good as dead. He was also told that he had considerable time constraints. Superman examined the situation in front of him and chose faith in his fellow man as his strategy. That's the kind of Superman I want to see. I want to see a Superman who is capable of believing that someone as belligerent as Batman could see reason and be a hero. I want to see a Superman who believes in second chances.
First of all, Batman is not privileged with the same omniscient point of view of the audience. Second, it's ludicrous to suggest that intelligence has anything to do with stripping a man of his paranoia and mental illness. Alfred called Bruce's descent a fever that turns good men cruel. One cannot cure a fever with intelligence. Bruce is blinded by his own trauma, depression, and sense of powerless. He has lost control. But that's why it is powerful to see the means by which he begins to convalesce and regain control. He is confronted with an image of himself becoming his own nightmare, and it opens the door for Bruce to reconnect with his true self. He can see himself and see his world more clearly because his greatest trauma was recreated.
They do this to explore the imperfections of heroes. How heroes can fall, and how they can rise. They do this to show us that heroes are not above PTSD, they are not above having love as a weakness, they are not above despair, they are not above doubt. The title promised only that the conflict between Batman and Superman would be the cause of a dawn of justice. The conflict, therefore, must explore the barriers that stand between heroes coming together to serve a greater good. The film, rightly, explores and exploits the most significant flaws in these iconic characters. For Bruce, his greatest flaw is his cynicism, control, and inability to break free of the trauma of his parents' death. For Clark, his greatest strength, which is his love for humanity, is also his greatest weakness. His need for acceptance and connection as a source of his optimism and hope is challenged.
It's not a dime. It's Bruce seeing himself clearly. It's Bruce seeing how far he has fallen. It's Bruce being confronted with the humanity of a man he refused to see as anything other than an abstraction onto which to project his own sense of powerlessness.
Uninvestigated? The film investigates Superman's sense of belonging and his sense of purpose. He begins by believing that people can see the good in him and will ultimately vindicate him only to see that hope slowly fade as his every attempt to do good and inspire hope in people only seems to breed more fear and more conflict. We see Superman as his alter ego, Clark Kent, pursuing social justice because he recognizes and is intrigued by another hero who is abusing his power. It's heroes like Batman that condition people to believe that someone like Superman cannot be an impeachable source of good. We see that what gives Superman the strength to overcome his hopelessness is to hold onto to the hope that the woman he loves has for him. I am affected just by the idea of a wrongly persecuted man who chooses to sacrifice his life for a world that has chosen to see the worst in him.
They didn't bring him back to life. There was a hint of a promise, but that promise has not yet been fulfilled.
Fantastic post. I think we all understand, to some degree or another, what they were going for with the film, and it either works or doesn't work. I'm sure for the people who dislike the film, it can be very annoying and condescending to be told "you just didn't get it", but it is just as ridiculous to imply to the defenders that they are trying to talk themselves into thinking the film is good, for the love of the characters, or high expectations going into the film. I consider myself an independent thinker, I form my own opinions about a film. I'm critical, fair, and hold the movies that I enjoy to a high standard. And the film totally clicked for me, I'm definitely not imagining it or trying to convince myself that I enjoyed it.
The film works for me, somebody who grew up obsessed with and inspired by and influenced by these characters throughout my entire childhood, because of the themes of how these characters relate to the world we live in today, why these characters are important.
You make a great point about the omniscient view of the audience compared to Bruce's view of Superman. Bruce Wayne didn't see Man Of Steel, all he saw was Black Zero, whatever clips on the news, "The Bat is dead.", promises broken and monsters created (Harvey Dent), tragedy due to Bruce not taking a threat as an absolute certainty (Jason Todd), etc. Bruce sees Superman (not Clark) through a completely different lens than we, the audience. That was the entire point of showing us Black Zero through his perspective, as well as making the direct connection between that event and his parents death, which I thought was pretty great and clever storytelling, personally.
I feel like all the major plot points were making a greater statement about the nature of the world we live in, currently. Every major issue, people are split on, differences in opinion lead to misunderstanding, choosing only to see your side of the argument, getting further entrenched in your own view, getting angry that somebody has a different opinion. People get violent, even kill others people because of their race, or their beliefs. Deaths occur because people have different theories on why and how we exist, or how we should live our lives. Many times, it is because they are being manipulated by someone in order to gain or maintain power and control. These kinds of things escalate beyond logic and reasoning, it becomes an "Us vs them, and we need to win at all costs" mentality, but if one were to step back and recognize some commonality, to come together and focus on the greater issue at hand (Doomsday representing ignorance, hatred, etc).
I felt the movie did a really good job with every scene and character being allegorical for some larger issue that we face as a society. I think it's perfect to use the Superhero genre, our modern day mythology, as a way to hold up a mirror and examine ourselves, I couldn't have asked for any more, that's what our stories should always attempt to do. The Jesus parallels, heavy handed to some, work so well for me because I look at Jesus' story in the same way I view the Superman mythos, stories that are passed down through generations in order to inspire us to be better, I feel that's what these stories did for me as a kid.
Sure, I can recognize some flaws in the storytelling or internal logic, but no more so than the Nolan trilogy, which I also love. I can forgive these things because I recognize how hard it is to tell a Superhero story that is meant to be both an action blockbuster and a serious allegorical film, and how much easier it would be just to tell a simple action blockbuster narrative (not that there's anything wrong with that). I feel some people blow a lot of these things way out of proportion as if it's the stupidest thing or worst writing, I feel it's a bit unfair.
BvS reminds me some of the Sopranos finale, very controversial, left a lot of people feeling empty, or let down from their expectations. I remember feeling just a bit unsatisfied after first viewing of the Sopranos finale, but then after a lot of analysis, discussion, and multiple viewings, I came to think it was absolutely brilliant, one of the greatest things put to film, and would try to debate with friends who thought it sucked. There was a lot there, beneath the surface, multiple layers, if you like looking for those things or making your own interpretations, filling in the missing pieces, basically adding to what is actually seen on film in my head. I feel BvS is the same, you have to fill in a lot of pieces in order to really appreciate the film and what it says to you, personally.
The film says a lot to me. Others, not so much, and I completely respect and am interested in what they have to say for why it didn't work, as long as I feel they are judging the movie on its own, not "what a Superhero movie should be" or "how Superman or Batman should be portrayed" because that's bull crap, the whole point of these characters is to be reimagined and retold in different contexts to examine what these characters mean at their very core. What bothers me the most is reading things like "joyless" "too dark" "too serious" because we need that in the Superhero genre, we need that variety, just like in the Western genre, there's room for so many different kinds of stories.
I get the criticism of the Martha moment, or Batman's reasoning, that some felt those things were forced in order to get from Point A to B to C, to deliver on the Heavyweight title match that is advertised. For me, it was all necessary in order to address the themes of the film in a 2.5 hour time limit, but a lot of people couldnt care less about those certain themes, they just want to watch a Superman and Batman story. Just different opinions on what we're looking for in a movie about these characters. For me, these are exactly the themes and questions I had been wanting addressed in a DC shared universe film for a long time, questions of how do these mythological characters fit into our modern world as opposed to the one they inhabited when they were created, what new challenges does that bring, how do we relate to them, can they still inspire us as they did when we were kids and the world was simple.
Visually, Snyder is a pretty brilliant director for a CBM, imo. It's completely unfair the amount of undeserved crap he gets. The movie is gorgeous, it looks like a comic book, the action is top quality, the character costume designs and actors are about as good as it gets when going from comic book page to big screen (except, I like and accept Eisenburg's take on Lex, but part of me feels like a different actor may have greatly elevated the role.
The symbolism in a lot of the imagery is great and gives me a lot to appreciate and discover on multiple viewings ("What falls is fallen", the pearls falling, Bruce falling into the cave and being lifted into the light, all juxtaposed against the dirt falling on his casket at the end, and ultimately rising in the very last scene, answering the question posed by Bruce in the very first scene, perhaps what falls is not fallen, perhaps there is always hope, and that's what Superman ultimately represents is hope, and I thought it was brilliant to use Bruce Wayne's story as the conduit for that idea of Superman inspiring the best in humanity, even amongst the cynicism, fear, and perceived hopelessness). For me, every moment or character decision feels earned, feels properly set up if you read into the dialogue or scenes preceding it, with the exception of Superman saying "Save Martha" which felt unnatural and forced in order to get to that infamous moment. But I feel that's one of those necessary compromises in order for that scene to play out as it did, because I felt that was a truly emotionally resonant moment for Batman as a character.
