Ryan McNeil
So many of us come wired with a very stubborn character stripe that believes we know what’s right. It comes with a demand that questions be answered, and people get held accountable. Often though, such positions are based on far more than the matter at-hand. Instead, what happens is past experiences become hard to let go of, and unrest becomes animosity. In short, what we end up acting on is less about what’s right, and more about what we want.
No person is immune. No superhero either.
DAWN OF JUSTICE begins with a different perspective of the final moments from MAN OF STEEL. This time we are on the ground, following Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck) as he suppresses shock and awe while watching a city fall around him, and people he cares about die. It’s clear this battle in the skies between Superman (Henry Cavill) and General Zod (Michael Shannon) will not stand in the eyes of the man who is secretly The Dark Knight of Gotham.
We then fast-forward 18 months. Lois Lane (Amy Adams) is chasing a story of African warlords when a firefight breaks out. Superman’s intervention once again appears to cost lives. Back in Metropolis, Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg) is pressing a US Senator (Holly Hunter) to make The Last Son of Krypton answer for his sins, and stand to be judged. Oh, and while she’s at it, she should allow Lex unprecedented access to Kryptonian artifacts recovered from Zod and Superman’s showdown.
Meanwhile, Daily Planet reporter Clark Kent is interested in news of the uptick in vigilante activity across the bay in Gotham City. He wonders why it is The Batman is allowed to dish out violent justice unchecked, and even confronts billionaire playboy Bruce Wayne about the incidents. Wayne, unsurprisingly, shrugs him off.
On the sidelines through all of this, a woman named Diana Prince (Gal Gadot) is watching them all…trying to get valuable information back from Lex, trying to learn more about other people with powers around the world, and try to keep these silly boys from destroying the whole damned world with their teeny brains and big…egos.
It’s no co-incidence that this film begins with a shift in perspective. Time and again in a film of this ilk, the point-of-view sticks with the combatants. Over the last few years, though, we have found ourselves more and more obsessed with the effect on the lives of the people around them. We are less concerned with the millions saved, and increasingly consumed with the hundreds lost. We have become a twisted version of our parents looking at the 96% grade at the top of our math test and asking “What happened to the other four percent?”
What happened – as DAWN OF JUSTICE takes great pains to point out – is that extra 4% got angry…got greedy…got arrogant. This “4%” – the ones feeling like the world (or their movies) owed them something – they took it upon themselves to settle accounts. Like so many of us, people like Bruce, Lex, the government, and one particular victim from Metropolis took a bad situation and made it worse. They took the lead without regard for any perspective other than their own. They thought they knew what was best for the world, what would “fix it”, what “it needed”.
In short, they didn’t stop to think. They acted incredibly impulsive, and in the end only added to the chaos.
This line of thinking supposes that every singular movement must be all things to all people. When we look at the core dichotomy that has brought this film upon us, we see two men who are both looked upon as saviours of their cities. One descends from the sun; one rises from the shadows. They save countless lives and yet their approach to the problem at-hand couldn’t be more different (not even getting into the fact that they are about to bring several others into the fray, with several other methods). Is it even remotely possible that they were ever going to see eye-to-eye?
Here’s a better question: does it even matter? I don’t ask that to suggest that this film comes without need or meaning, more to ask if it is necessary that we all agree on one way to solve a problem…or approach a blockbuster?
The funny thing about comic books is the way they have often reflected society in North America at the time they were brought to life. So during times of great unrest – like the Civil Rights era, or Post-9/11 America – our heroes and villains were drawn into stories and scenes that reflected the lives of the audience they were speaking to. Is it possible then, that comic book movies likewise reflect what is going on in moviegoers minds? Is it possible that a film that seems schizophrenic, grumpy, self-righteous, and cacophonous is in-fact a comment on the people who go and the people who discuss them?
The Mark Zuckerberg credit made me laugh out loud. Well played.
That actually wasn’t intentional, but I’m always glad to provide for a laugh.
Heh. Nice approach. It’s been amusing to me to see the polarizing effect this movie has on people (critics, audiences of whatever camp—and they appear to be camps). I read you opining if a movie so rancorous could avoid such controversy? Probably not. However, everyone has an opinion…of equal value, no more/no less. What amuses me is that it seems some people think that if someone disagrees, it undermines their opinion, or nullifies it (and thus they escalate it to make it seem more important, or “right”).
I happened to like it a lot. What did YOU think?
I enjoyed myself, but I’m a rigged deck where Superman is concerned. He’s my favorite character. As such, stuff that shouldn’t work on me totally does, and if things go “wrong” it’s because I have a certain approach to the lore in my mind. Ergo, I abstain from talking about whether or not this is a “good movie” or not.
You bring up something that got my attention the most; how everyone’s reaction to this film seemed to be fuelled just as much by OTHER reactions (critics – to hype & fanboy backlash; moviegoers – to critical drubbing). I know it is increasingly hard to leave outside influences at the door, but for reasons I don’t understand, this film seemed to take it all to a new level. It wasn’t fun to watch any of it happen.
But back to what happened on-screen, there will be a podcast episode tomorrow discussing a bit more of the nitty-gritty about what I dug and didn’t dig. It’s a bit heavy-handed and overblown, but then…so is much of the genre these days. We just often choose not to notice.
Bring on Wonder Woman in 2017!
I will listen with interest…with a couple cups of coffree.
I think what’s been most interesting about this film is the hype parade surrounding it. From the years of speculation, the days of negative reviews, and the weekend of unsurprisingly (yet also qualified) record-breaking box office, this film has gone all over the map. And at its core, there are still three characters that all have their fans regardless of what’s presented in front of them, whether or not it’s accessible to those looking to dissect the story and pacing, or to those who have a set-in-stone perception of one of the characters. For everyone else, it’s Batman fighting Superman and our first live action Wonder Woman since the 70’s, and that’s enough for some people.
Oddly enough? It was that long conversation about how accountable Supe should be held that interested me the most, and how it all seemed to be fuelled by the general audience reaction to MAN OF STEEL. The fight was the fight (except when Diana was fighting, since that was especially badass), but that longer question of responsibility, blame, and potential solution was what kept me most interested.
This baroque mess was a lot of fun to watch, still not sure how much of it I actually liked but as it progressed it felt that it was being taking over by the WB/DC need to have more movies and the tension and the conflict and every part of it that was interesting was deflated and made ready for a sequel.
Probably should have seen that coming. (Snyder is still king at making references to things and not paying them off well at all)