Hallelujah: "Zack Snyder's Justice League"

Spoilers Below

Zack Snyder's Justice League is a vindication for an often misunderstood and unfairly demonized filmmaker. It's also a reaffirmation that superhero films can be genuine artistic expressions. After viewing the film I'm not sure about what Warner Bros. was in such a panic they felt the need to bring in Joss Whedon to reshoot so much of it. If they wanted the lighter-toned, more optimistic superhero film, Snyder gave it to them. Man of Steel had a rough around the edges Superman make some mistakes on his way to saving the world and Batman v. Superman was a deconstructionist take on the superhero mythos; but ZSJL is the most traditionally superheroic film in the trilogy. I would argue it has the perfect tone- serious but not as heavy as MoS or BvS, with just the right amount of levity without feeling like a MCU film. And even without the behind the scenes turmoil ZSJL would still stand as a very good- even great- superhero epic.

Right from the first scene it's clear this version is a more fluid continuation of BvS  than Whedon's version as we witness Superman's  Henry Cavill) death at the hands of Doomsday from that film's climax. But just that film's beginning had us see MoS's climax from Bruce Wayne's (Ben Affleck) perspective, here Snyder shows us Superman's death screams awakening the three Mother Boxes, which the being Darkseid (Ray Porter) once used in an attempt to conquer Earth thousands of years ago before he defeated by an union between Man, Olympian Gods, Atlanteans, Amazons and Green Lanterns. After the battle the Mother Boxes were separated and hidden. 

BvS and ZSJL's openings emphasize how Snyder's films are about Superman's presence- and absence in the world. BvS had an angry and distrustful Bruce who viewed Superman as a threat to humanity. Here, Bruce understands Superman's death leaves Earth vulnerable to attack- largely in part to his conversation with Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg). Bruce and Diana Prince/Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot)  have to recruit other metahumans- Barry Allen/The Flash (Ezra Miller), Victor Stone/Cyborg (Ray Fisher), and Arthur Curry/Aquaman (Jason Momoa) to combat Darkseid's emissary Steppenwolf (Ciaran Hinds), who is looking for the Mother Boxes.

ZSJL doesn't have the same complex plotting of BvS but it's not as streamlined as the theatrical cut.four hours there's more breathing room for the characters to be fleshed out, especially Barry and Victor, the latter cited by Snyder as being the heart of the film. I loved Barry's introduction when he save Iris West (Kiersey Clemons) from a disastrous car wreck using his speed powers. Scored to Rose Betts' version of Tim Buckley's Song to the Siren, Snyder reminds us how romantic a superheroic feat can be. Without  exchanging words I'm already looking forward Iris and Barry's relationship in Andy Muschietti's Flash movie. 

Victor is the film's most identifiable character since he's the League member who views his powers as a curse, the position many people in reality would take if they were half human, half robot. Victor resents his father Dr. Silas Stone (Joe Morton) for making him this way after he was nearly killed in a car accident that claimed his mother Elinore Stone (Karen Bryson). Silas used one of the Mother Boxes to save Victor and this bit of plotting efficiently makes the Stone family the central part of the story.

Victor is reborn as Cyborg and birth/death/rebirth is a major motif through Snyder's trilogy. MoS begins with Superman's birth and Krypton's death. General Zod's (Michael Shannon) motivation is create a new Krypton on Earth. BvS ends with Superman's death and Bruce's rebirth as a more hopeful man. Clark Kent is reborn as the traditional Superman. He died sacrificing himself for humanity, proving to humanity how much he cares for them. When he returns- again, using a Mother Box- it's significant the first thing he sees is the memorial dedicated to him. And when he's fighting the League due to memory loss, it's Lois Lane (Amy Adams), who brings him to his senses, the person for whom he died. She, along with his mother Martha Kent (Diane Lane) represent humanity's best to Superman.

Snyder is known for his bombastity but Snyder is capable of incredibly intimate moments, some of the best in the genre. The scenes on the Kent farm in ZSJL are nostalgic and  warm, homaging Richard Donner's Superman: The Movie while still working on its own merits. It's about a family coming together, a man with the most important women in his life, finding peace even when the world may come to an end. 

Family is another big theme in this film; as I've already pointed out the Stones are central to the story and Superman has Martha and Lois. Bruce becomes part of a family again after the death of  his adopted son Robin. Diana has her mother and sisters on Themyscira and Arthur has unresolved issues with his Atlantean mother and human father. Barry 's father Henry Allen (Billy Crudup) is falsely imprisoned for the murder of Barry's mother (comic fans know what the backstory behind that is). And speaking of mother, the McGuffins are called Mother Boxes. Moreover, Steppenwolf is Darkseid's uncle who wants to get back in his favor after betraying him. 

I've talked quite a bit about the character stuff here so now I just want to say that Snyder creates the most visually bold and beautiful comic book movies. Snyder shot in the 4:3 aspect ratio, which gives the film wholly different feel than any other superhero film. Snyder has talked about his decision to shoot the film in this manner and how it was supposed to be seen in IMAX: Why Zack Snyder’s Justice League is in a 4:3 Aspect Ratio | Den of Geek

The film's cinematographer Fabian Wagner and Snyder create some truly right-off-the-page comic book images, which brings me to the "Knightmare" timeline, first glimpsed in BvS, where Darkseid has won and Superman is under his control. The Knightmare scene at the film's end is so comicbooky and I love it for that. The fact we have Arthur's queen Mera (Amber Heard) and the Joker (Jared Leto) is kind of incredible. And the dialogue between Batman and Joker feels ripped from an actual comic book.

There's more I'll probably write about ZSJL but for now I do really hope the "Snyderverse'' is restored. There's so much potential for this universe going forward. Snyder no doubt has a vision and embraces the craziness of the comic book universe. And if we're going to keep making comic book and superhero films we directors and writing to push the genre forward to avoid stagnation. So, what did you think of ZSJL? Comment below and let me know.

On Directors' Cuts and "Zack Snyder's Justice League"

The term "auteur theory" was first coined by American film critic Andrew Sarris in the 1960s though the idea of an filmmaker being an auteur originated with the French film critics of the magazine Cahiers du Cinema. The auteur theory believes the director is the author of a film and a director is an auteur if they have a distinguishable visual style and recurring themes throughout their work

I begin with the auteur theory because I believe the term "director's cut" reinforces the idea of director as author. A director's cut of a film suggests validity- this is the true version of the film and what was seen originally was a compromised version of a filmmaker's vision. And I do think that's true in many cases. Films have suffered from being cut down from their intended length and tampered with by studios. One of the best examples is Ridley Scott's Blade Runner. The 1982 theatrical cut had the studio imposed happy ending and Harrison Ford's voice-over narration. The 1992 director's cut and subsequent 2007 Final Cut enhanced the film's standing as a science fiction masterpiece. 

Then there are times where a true director's cut can't exist. For example, the restored version of Orson Welles' Touch of Evil. Welles had died before that version was released so it cannot be called a director's cut. However it is based on Welles' memo to Universal Studios and is the closest thing to Welles' vision for the film. And the Assembly Cut of Alien 3 didn't have David Fincher's involvement but is seen as an improvement over the theatrical release, closer to what Fincher was attempting with the film.

Peter Jackson and James Cameron don't like the label of Director's Cut because it implies dissatisfaction  with the theatrical release. They prefer "Special" or "Extended Edition." The Extended Edition of his Lord of the Rings Trilogy weren't intended by Jackson to replace the theatrical versions. They were for fans who wanted more of Middle-Earth. But there's also the several special editions of the original Star Wars Trilogy. George Lucas feels the special effects at the time of the original trilogy's production didn't allow him to fully realize the Star Wars universe on screen.

As I said earlier the term director's cut relates to the auteur theory. But, as with the auteur theory, it's important not to lose sight of the collaborative process of filmmaking. Many people's work is also compromised. One major case of this is Zack Snyder's Justice League. It was recently announced we are finally getting to see Zack Snyder's version of Justice League in 2021 when it premieres on HBO Max. In this case, this isn't a director's cut since the the theatrical cut was largely Joss Whedon's, with some footage from Snyder. What we have is a completely different film. And it feels like a game-changer. Warner Bros. smuggled in the Whedon--directed film under Snyder's name, hoping to get approval from critics and fans who reacted negatively to Batman v. Superman. The plan backfired when the film bombed and fans felt betrayed. The #Releasethesnydercut movement was born and led to Snyder's gaining the opportunity to show his original vision.

In the wake of the movement there's already been a push to release the late Joel Schumacher's supposed darker and longer cut of Batman Forever. And David Ayer's Suicide Squad may also finally being getting a director's cut as well. Ayer initially said the version released in theatres was his cut but the film received a extended cut on blu ray and he has recently been talking on Twitter about his original vision for the film and scenes which were cut. It's become a meme to say "#releasethe" whatever cut. Studios may engage with the directors they hire differently going forward. In the era of social media people are more aware of what goes on behind the scenes and directors have a platform to talk about their work. 

Now, I want to make clear I don't think studio involvement is always a bad thing. In the case of Howard Hawks' The Big Sleep (1946), the film was improved by additional scenes shot at the behest of producer Jack L. Warner. He encouraged by Lauren Bacall's agent Charles K. Feldman who believed Bacall's career would be over if she received the same negative reviews she did for Confidential Agent (1945), shot after The Big Sleep was released first due to its war-time subject. The additional scenes between her and Bogart, including a discussion about horses which is very sexual in its innuendo, helped make the film a classic.

  

I'm glad Snyder and everyone involved finally sees their work get its due. As a fan of Snyder's first two films in this story it's exciting to see a proper continuation of what he set up.      

So, are you excited for Snyder's Justice League? Do you believe it'll change anything in Hollywood? Comment and let me know.

On Robert Pattinson as Batman and Fan Entitlement.

When it comes to comic book movie- or any big Hollywood movie- casting, history, as in all things, repeats itself. With Robert Pattinson announced as the new Batman in Matt Reeves' upcoming film,

there's already a petition to replace Pattinson, just like his predecessor Ben Affleck when his casting in Zack Snyder's Batman v. Superman was announced. They're both in good company though.

When Michael Keaton was first cast as Bruce Wayne/Batman in Tim Burton's 1989 Batman (which, like me, celebrates its 30th anniversary this year), the reaction from fans was less than positive. Keaton was known for his comedic roles in films such as Mr. Mom, Johnny Dangerously and Burton's Beetlejuice. Due to Keaton's comedy background, the impression was Burton's film would be similar the Batman TV show from the 60s starring Adam West, which was notably comedic, whereas fans were hoping for a more serious take. 

Burton's film would ultimately turn out to be a fun-house mirror version of the 60s series, with Jack Nicholson's Joker being a more psychotic take on Caesar Romero's performance. West played Batman as just a normal guy dressing up in a Bat-suit; Keaton brought a strong silent presence to his portrayal of the Caped Crusader and played to his comedic strengths as Bruce Wayne. Keaton's performance was a slightly "off" version of Wayne, a version of the character that emphasized how weird and anti-social a guy who decided to dress up as a bat would be. Now, it's hard to disassociate Keaton from the role, especially for my generation who grew up with Keaton and Burton's two films.

Heath Ledger's casting as the Joker in Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight was met with intense scepticism who couldn't see Ledger as a psychotic clown. Ledger would go on to posthumously win the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor, the only actor to win an Oscar for a superhero film. And his performance is still seen as the benchmark for super-villain performances.

Even Robert Downey, Jr. as Iron Man was met with resistance. But his performance and the original Iron Man gave birth to what's arguably the biggest franchise in film history, the Marvel Cinematic Universe. 

It's okay to have doubts regarding an actor's casting but creating a petition to recast an actor before they even give a performance is, I believe, dictating the film-making process. I feel certain fans want to control the making of these movies when t's the director's crew and cast whom craft it. Pandering to fans does not a good movie make. Look at Justice League, which was re-shot from Snyder's original version to accommodate fans who disliked Batman v. Superman and Man Steel. It ended up making Superman a caricature and losing any of the edge and thematic aspiration that Snyder brought to his previous two films. 

There's also a petition to remake Season 8 of Game of Thrones and before that one to remake The Last Jedi. However one feels about the new season of GOT (I haven't seen it but know the events of the previous episode) or The Last Jedi, they will never be remade. Ultimately they have be viewed as they are, good or bad, or somewhere in between. I have my criticisms of The Last Jedi but there will never be a version of the film which "fixes" my issues with it. Being critical of the media you consume is healthy but wanting an artist to somehow to remake or change a film or TV show reeks of entitlement. Now, there are cases a where a director has gone back and tinkered, added or eliminated things from a film. Oliver Stone continued to rework his maligned Alexander. Ridley Scott went back twice to Blade Runner and of course George Lucas notoriously added to special effects to the original Star Wars trilogy. While it is possible for a film to be changed down the road, in these cases it was the directors' choice to go back and alter their films. Their reasons had to do with their creative fashion rather than fan dictation.

Coming back to Pattinson, I think he's a tantalizing choice for the role because like Keaton and Bale, and even Val Kilmer, he's not a conventional leading man. In his roles in David Cronenberg's Cosmopolis and the Safdie Brother's Good Time, has an off-kilter quality that befits the weirdness inherent in Bruce Wayne's character. I also admire Reeves as a filmmaker. The last two Planet of the Apes films are what more Hollywood blockbusters should aspire to be. So now I leave it to you. What you think about Pattinson's cast as well as fan petitions? Comment below and let me know.

"The Times They are A- Changin:" Zack Snyder's "Watchmen" at 10

Zack Snyder's Watchmen, adapted by David Hayter from Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons' seminal 1986 graphic novel of the same name, was released 10 years ago this month. It's often referred to as ahead of its time, just like  Moore and Gibbons' masterpiece, entirely different from anything before or after in the medium. And yes, I would say the same about Snyder's film, which stands out from any comic book movie before or since, even his own.

While the superhero genre had matured and deepened by 2009 with Spider-Man 2, and the one-two punch of Iron Man and The Dark Knight the year previously, the concept of adapting a dense and intricate work such as Watchmen was equivalent to adapting The Lord of the Rings- it was seen as impossible to do a successful film adaptation of Watchmen. I think this is because- as has been said in the past- Watchmen is a comic about the comic medium and uses the medium in a very specific way to tell its story. As such, any film version of Watchmen would have to be it's own thing. In his video on the film, "Iamthatroby" says the Watchmen film is a superhero movie about superhero movies. And I the film, while faithful to the overall plot of the graphic novel, has to be viewed in the proper context without judging it too much against the graphic novel. Having just re-watched it, I've come to love the film and think it's quite amazing. I never disliked it just that I needed a few watches for it to really click with me. And the fact it came out 10 years ago, when the idea of an Avengers or Batman/Superman movie was still a comic book fan's dream, is incredible.

The fact such an ambitious undertaking was only Snyder's third feature is also impressive, though his first two films weren't safe bets either. His first, Dawn of the Dead (2004), was a remake of a horror classic and 300 (2007) was a largely visual effects adaptation of Frank Miller's epic graphic novel 300. That which made Snyder's name synonymous with highly stylized visuals and fidelity to the comic book source material. Also, Miller, like Moore, is one of the most important comic book creators of his time (both also contributed to the Batman mythos with Miller writing The Dark Knight Returns, a big influence on Snyder's Batman v. Superman, and Moore writing The Killing Joke.) So, it's not a surprise Snyder got the job bringing Watchmen to screen.

Watchmen takes place in an alternate 1985 where Richard Nixon has been able to retain power and is still President of the United States. This is also a world where costumed vigilantes have and still exist, though costumed crime-fighting has been made illegal. Former Nite Owl (Stephen McHattie), Hollis Mason, tells his successor Dan Dreiberg (Patrick Wilson), also retired, that the earlier generation had it easier. Nixon pushed the younger generation out. I love when Mason calls Nixon a prick then adds "And to think I voted for that prick five times," to which Dan replies "Hey, it was him or the commies." This notion of voting for someone you don't like just to avoid someone who you like less can't help but remind of the attitude in the last American election.

Edward Blake, also known as The Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), a government agent and former Minuteman/Watchmen, is killed, which kicks off the action of the story. While in the graphic novel, the Comedian's is shown is brief flashbacks, the film opens with a stylized fight sequence establishes the film's action. While I've had a problem with the seemingly normal people in the comic world having super strength in the movie, I think I've come to view the action in this film in the proper context of it being a heightened reality, as well as calling attention exaggerated superhero action. The contrasts stylization with real-world brutality quite effectively.

I think Morgan really nails the character. This is a guy who's a real bastard- he tries to rape Sally Jupiter/Silk Spectre (Carla Gugino), kills a Vietnamese woman he impregnated during the Vietnam War, and killed JFK. But he's charismatic and somewhat sympathetic when he experiences an existential crisis. Morgan captures both the humanity and inhumanity of this man, and we can kind of understand why Sally went back to him and eventually had had his child, Laurie (Malin Akerman), the second Silk Spectre. This is perhaps the powerful and poignant aspect of both the comic and movie, that a woman could love a man who attempted to rape her. This is a complex emotional territory and I love Sally telling Laurie that she couldn't hate Blake because "he gave me you."

I want to talk about John Osterman/Dr. Manhattan because in many ways I find him the most fascinating character in the film. Osterman is a atomic physicist who due to a freak science accident is transformed in to a super-powered being named Dr. Manhattan after the Manhattan project. Dr. Manhattan isn't human but he's not quite a god either. Janey Slater (Laura Mennell), Osterman's former lover and fellow scientist, says Manhattan is a god to which says he doesn't believe in God and if he's real, he's nothing like him. Thinking about the character brought to mind the oft-quoted idea that God can't be both all powerful and all good; and if neither why call him God. Manhattan doesn't seem to be either all powerful or all good, eventually having a detached view of humanity and retreating to Mars.

When Blake kills the Vietnamese woman he blames Manhattan for not stopping it and says Manhattan is losing his touch with humanity, adding "God help us all," underscoring how Manhattan isn't God. Manhattan's purpose in the story is to explore how people would react to a super-powered being in the real world. Snyder would also explore this idea in Man of Steel and BvS, in which Lex Luthor does bring up the Problem of Evil (God can't be both all powerful and all good). And like Manhattan, Superman in BvS begins to lose faith in humanity.

But  there's something terrifying about Manhattan, he's not the hopeful figure Superman is. He's a deterrent to Russia starting a Nuclear War with the US but he also creates a kind of fear that would start a war. Manhattan is not all powerful, as Laurie tells him later, he's just going through the motions like a puppet. Nor is he all good- he doesn't prevent Blake's gunning down of a pregnant woman.

I think my favourite sequence in the film is  Manhattan's origin, beautifully edited by William Hoy, Snyder's editor on 300 and his follow-up to Watchmen, Sucker Punch (2011). Hoy  creates a nostalgic, dream-like feel that soon turns in to a nightmare when Osterman becomes Manhattan. I love how the flashback stars out with a warm look at the fair with Osterman and Janey. The scene cuts from Osterman's friend  Wally Weaver looking lively to Weaver dead in a hospital; this shot has a cold look. The scene in the science lab is also shot to look a little colder, foreshadowing Manhattan's personality and look. 

One of the major changes in the film is Adrian Veidt (Matthew Goode) making the world think Manhattan attacked New York City, preventing any nuclear conflict and bringing the world together in an Utopia. In the comic, it's a giant squid but I think-at least in the movie- Manhattan being the scapegoat works really well, tying everything back to the fear surrounding Manhattan. People are willing to accept Manhattan did turn on them. Veidt understands what will unite the world is the fear of something outside of humanity.

What I like about Watchmen's ending is it's not about whether Veidt's actions are morally justifiable but what do the characters do in the aftermath of destruction? Do they preserve the lie that has brought peace or reveal the truth, which would mean all those people died in vain if the world went back to the brink of war. It's a no win scenario. Walter Kovacs/Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley) doesn't compromise and I think it's incredibly appropriate he tells Manhattan to kill him; that's the only way he won't reveal the truth.

Rorschach reminds me of the Marvel Comics character The Punisher, in that he is committed to warring on crime and killing criminals without mercy. When he's arrested and interviewed by a psychiatrist, he tells of how he used to let criminals live until he found the killer of a young girl, brutally murdering with a meat cleaver. This is where- as Rorschach tells it- Walter Kovacs truly died and Rorschach was born. When his mask is taken off by the police, he screams for them to give him back his face. It's part of him, it is him. Rorschach's narration is reminiscent of Travis Bickle, the character portrayed by Robert De Niro in Martin Scorsese's Taxi Driver (1976), due to his narration about the scum on the New York streets. My favourite shot in the film is when Rorschach goes in to the bathroom to kill Big Figure (Danny Woodburn). The door swings eerily and unusually back and forth as we see Rorschach move in for the kill- until we can only see Rorschach before the door closes. For a film with such brutal and explicit violence, this is an effective example of leaving it to the audience's imagination what happens.

Haley has to do a lot of acting with just his voice and body language. I think he absolutely embodies the character. When we see him without his mask, we see a man cold and detached but with much anger underneath the surface. It's only at the end when he tells Manhattan to kill him that we see him actually break down emotionally and cry. For me it's the most affecting emotional moment in the film.     

Rorschach does get the last laugh, so to speak, since his journal will be discovered by a newspaper employee. The film ends with the question of not only will the truth be revealed but what are the consequences? Will humanity go back to the brink of or will it enter a new status quo? It's also a question of personal responsibility and what choice an individual feels he/she should make. Is a world of peace more important than our own feelings of morality? And how do we deal with knowing a dark truth, what does it do to our conscience?

I know one criticism of the film is Veidt being too sinister, telegraphing he's the villain, as opposed to his depiction in the comic. I believe Veidt is intentionally being played up as the villain because the surprise of the film is his plan not be rooted in villainy. He's attempting to make the world a better place. His villainous demeanour is a red herring. Veidt is set up as an archetype, an archetype that's subverted by film's end.

I also want to mention Larry Fong, who I think is a fantastic cinematographer. He creates a diverse palette for this, as I mentioned when I talked about the Manhattan origin scene. Some scenes have a warmer look, others colder. There are scenes and shots that reflect an "old-timey" representation of the past, and more urban, gritty scenes. We also  have cosmic stuff with Manhattan on Mars. What's impressive is it all blends together, forming a cohesive world.

The title sequence is a great example of this, as we travel through history, showing us the Minutemen's origin in the 40s, to Manhattan meeting JFK in the early 60s and the emergence of the new Watchmen. There's both happiness and tragedy in this sequence. It's  a brilliant piece of visual storytelling.

Another sequence I think is wonderful is Mason's death. After Nite Owl and Silk Spectre break Rorschach out of prison, some goons think it was the former Nite Owl who did it. They attack Mason who fights back and from his POV we see him imaging the attackers as his former enemies from his time as Nite Owl. The music is stirring until it cuts out when Mason is killed with a trophy, signifying the emergence of brutal reality in to the scene.

Snyder is one of those rare blockbuster auteurs, filmmakers who are making personal and artistic films on a large budget. Instead of relying so much on a formula, movies like Watchmen operate outside of the box. I've come to appreciate Snyder as a filmmaker more since Man of Steel. I'd go as far as listing him as one of my favourite working directors. Watchmen foreshadowed similar themes Snyder would explore later on in MoS and BvS, including the idea of a super-powered, God like being among us.

It's appropriate that Bob Dylan's "The Times They Are A-Changin" plays over the opening credits since Watchmen is about the past and nostalgia. And the perception of superhero cinema has changed over the years. With the deluge of the Marvel Cinematic Universe films, Watchmen shines a little brighter because it's so distinct from other superhero films. Like BvS, it's a grower, and one now I would rank amongst my favourite comic book films.

"Men are still good:" An essay on "Man of Steel" and "Batman v. Superman"

Warning: Spoilers for both films will follow


I don't think it's too hyperbolic to say that Zack Snyder's Man of Steel and Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice are arguably the most controversial and divisive superhero films ever made. They've received both intense hate and love, which isn't surprising. From tone to characterisation, these are not the films many people want. For many, these films are too dark, too violent ("Batman and Superman shouldn't kill"), and don't have enough levity. For me, MoS and BvS are two of the boldest examples of modern blockbuster film-making- significantly flawed but still potent and filled with numerous moments of visual and emotional beauty. This essay will focus on MoS and BvS' thematic concerns rather than attempt to outright review the films. 

On an important side-note, with the newly released Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice- Ultimate Edition on Blu-ray, (which contains 30 more minutes of footage), we're able to see Zack Snyder's original vision for his much maligned film. The Ultimate Edition is fuller and more cohesive. It also feels like the three hour epic as which it was originally conceived.The film's reputation has gained some much needed positivity due to the Ultimate Edition, which I think is helpful as we move closer to next year's Justice League. 

Beginning with MoS, the film shares structural similarities to Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins (David S. Goyer wrote both films, Nolan shares a story credit and is a producer on MoS). Like Batman Begins, MoS has a fractured narrative. As the ship carrying baby Kal (Superman's Kryptonian name) is about to crash on earth, we cut to adult Clark Kent (Henry Cavill) working as a fisherman. It's an elegant way to start at the beginning  of the Superman story (Krypton's destruction) while not wasting time getting to Clark as an adult. We then witness, via flashback, Clark's childhood, where he learns about and struggles with his super-human powers. In the present an adult Clark finally discovers where he came from and of his real purpose on Earth.

By employing a flashback structure, MoS distances and diversifies itself from Richard Donner's original classic with Christopher Reeve, which told its story linearly. And by positioning the scenes of Clark's childhood and young adulthood as flashbacks, it makes the experience of the film more intimate; Clark reflects on the moments of his life that defined him, which inform the moments in the present. The scenes of MoS where Clark is discovering where he came from- are its strongest. They feel less like a traditional superhero film than an independent film about someone who has super powers. When General Zod (Michael Shannon) and his fellow Kryptonians come to earth, the film becomes an alien invasion sci-fi film that happens to have Superman in it.

Both MoS and BvS also approach the concept and character of Superman from a very specific angle, which is, how would people react if Superman actually existed in our world. Some would worship him as a saviour, some would fear him or even hate him, and some wouldn't know how to feel. The film-makers approached MoS as a first-contact story- our first encounter with alien life. By being a story about Earth's first encounter with alien life, MoS isn't just a story about Superman, it's a story about the whole being at the precipice of a new chapter in history. The attempted terra-forming and subsequent battle of Metropolis are ground-zero for everything going forward in the DCEU (DC Extended Universe). We are shown a modern and realistic world that witnesses the birth of a modern mythology. The events of the film will be spoken about for generations to come. The arrival of Superman has irrevocably changed the course of world history.

At the end of MoS, Superman is forced to kill  Zod the most controversial moment in either film. I don't want to get in to whether Superman should or shouldn't kill. In the context of the film I feel killing Zod is a sacrifice Superman has to make for humanity. He has to kill the last of his race so that the Earth can survive. This makes him the last living Kryptonian on the planet. By showing he is able to sacrifice Krypton for Earth he becomes the representation of Krypton to Earth- the bridge between Krypton and Earth of which his birth father Jor-El (Russell Crowe) spoke.

Moving on to BvS, in that film's news montage, Vikram Gandhi (playing himself) person says the arrival of Superman is a "paradigm shift," and that we can't presume to make Superman abide by our rules- it just won't work. While we Gandhi states people have to start to thinking beyond politics. But as Andrew Sullivan (also playing himself) says, whatever Superman does can be construed as a political act. Sullivan's statement appears to me to be a comment on the image of Superman as an all-American hero. In the modern era, Superman has to represent everyone and care about the state of the whole world- but again, as grand a figure as he is, he can't really escape the political implications and ramifications of his actions. "Must there be a Superman?" Charlie Rose asks Senator June Finch (Holly Hunter). Her blunt answer: "There is." Superman is here, regardless of whether people want him or not; he is part of their existence. This one line conveys how it would feel to know- and have to accept- someone like Superman existing in our world. 

And maybe people do need a Superman. All super-heroes inspire us to be better and Superman represents this idea of inspiration better than all the others. While some may find Superman outdated, I think he remains relevant in our current time. There is so much hatred and cynicism that poisons the world. that what Superman stands for is still important: Hope. The hope that we can be better as a people if led the way, if we come together instead of continuing to push each other away.

One criticism of both MoS and BvS is they don't have the optimistic and light-hearted tone that we'd expect from a Superman film. And that's true- but despite being quite serious dark in many places, I believe there is an optimistic undercurrent to both films. In MoS, Superman gaining Colonel Nathan Hardy's (Christopher Meloni) trust and respect when he saves Hardy from Kryptonian Faora (Antje Traue) during the fight in Smallville shows Hardy's- and mankind in general- ability to look beyond his prejudice and see Superman as a hero and ally rather than just an alien. And during the film's climax, Perry White (Laurence Fishburne) stay with Jenny (Rebecca Buller) as Metropolis is crumbling around them, displaying the compassion that even the most hardened man is capable of showing.   

Most importantly, by the end of BvS Superman has restored Bruce Wayne's (Ben Affleck) faith in humankind. In the film's closing scenes Bruce tells Diana Prince/Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot), "Men are still good. We fight. We kill. We betray one another. But we can rebuild. We can do better. We will. We have to." Bruce has spent most of the film hating and wanting to kill Superman- but in a bitter-sweet irony, Superman's sacrifice and death in the fight against Doomsday has shown Bruce a person's ability to be selfless and good. Superman still struggles with being a symbol of hope throughout BvS. People still question his motivations- politically and morally- throughout the film. Through his death at the film's end, I feel he becomes that symbol. His death rises him above politics and fear, and his absence allows humanity to reflect on his time on Earth and how they'll move forward. Superman's sacrifice ties both he and Bruce's arcs nicely together. 

Speaking of Bruce Wayne, I think along with Batman Begins, BvS features the best exploration of Bruce/Batman in live-action. The film begins with the funeral of Bruce's parents, Thomas and Martha Wayne- which bookends with Superman's funeral at the end. Just as MoS began with the cries of baby Kal El- the first natural birth on Krypton in centuries- BvS begins with the "birth" of Batman. In a dream sequence where he's at his parents' funeral Bruce falls down a hole and is swarmed by bats who- in one of the film's most striking images- bring him back up to the surface- to a "beautiful lie," as Bruce tells us in voice-over.

We then witness the Battle of Metropolis from Bruce's perspective. This first scene with the older Bruce establishes his motivations for wanting to destroy Superman. He blames Superman the destruction of Metropolis and the loss of the people in of his buildings. He comforts a girl who lost her mother in the destruction. Part of what drives Bruce in his mission as Batman is the need to prevent his tragedy happening to another child. The orphaned girl further fuels Bruce's rage.

He also fears what would happen if Superman decides to turn against mankind. This is highlighted by the "Knightmare" sequence in which Bruce sees a possible future where Superman is a tyrant (reminiscent of the Injustice video game and the subsequent comic book series it inspired). This sequence is a miniature movie in itself. It both reflects and reinforces Bruce's fears of Superman's unlimited capabilities. 

Just before the fight between Batman and Superman, Bruce tells Alfred (Jeremy Irons) that killing Superman will be his legacy. Bruce feels that criminals are like weeds but eliminating Superman will secure the survival of the world. This is an point-of-view from the character I don't think has ever been explored in the comics- Bruce thinking about a legacy outside his war on crime. Maybe it wouldn't work in the comics medium but in a film it makes sense. This Bruce has aged in real time- 20 years in Gotham as the Batman. This exchange between Bruce and Alfred also conveys that Bruce has been driven over the edge by Superman's presence in the world, on top everything else he's experienced through his. He's willing to fight a super-human being so he can secure a legacy beyond that of beating up criminals, one that's befitting of the Wayne name- "They were hunters," Bruce says of his ancestors.

Bruce also mentions he's older than his father ever was. Like other superheroes that followed them, Superman and Batman's beginnings are based in the loss of parents. MoS is very much a film about fathers, as Superman has two- his aforementioned Kryptonian father Jor and his adopted father, Jonathan Kent (Kevin Costner). Jonathan is protective of his son, knowing he's meant for something greater but afraid what will happen when he reveals himself to the world.

If MoS was largely about fathers, then BvS is about mothers. The "Martha" scene has been the subject of much ridicule. People read the scene as Batman becoming Superman's ally just because their mothers share the same name. But I think it goes deeper than that. Batman realizes he's been manipulated by Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg). He also finally sees Superman as someone with genuine humanity- he has a mother who he's trying to save. Batman has an epiphany, which brings him back from the edge.

Now, about Lex Luthor. I feel BvS' Lex is one of the more unusual villains in recent comic-book movie history. Eisenberg's interpretation is the most eccentric Lex we've seen on screen thus far. His motivations have nothing to do with taking over the world or real estate. All the intricate plot mechanics- which were muddled in the theatrical version of BvS- are in service of Lex's anger from a childhood trauma that never healed. Lex tells Superman that no God saved him when his father physically abused him. To Lex, Superman represents the God who was never there when he needed him. Lex directs all his hatred toward Superman and wishes to prove that the perfect God figure isn't perfect- when pushed, he'll kill someone to save his mother. Though, ironically, Lex's plan is self-destructive, since kidnapping Martha Kent (Diane Lane) is what brings Batman over to Superman's side.

Despite its title, BvS isn't really about Batman and Superman fighting. Yes, it's pivotal sequence in the film and the plot threads of the film lead to it- but BvS is more about bringing these heroes together. What's more satisfying than seeing these two titans duke it out onscreen is seeing them reconcile- to witness Batman seeing Superman for who he really is. "I failed him in life. I will not fail him," says Bruce at the end. This line solidifies Bruce's arc in the film; and it says a great deal about how our relationship with someone can drastically change. Bruce began hating Superman but now he'll make certain his sacrifice isn't in vain. Superman's death is the basis for gathering the Justice League, a team that will honour his memory. And when Superman returns, he will lead this team. I don't find the tease of Superman's return in the film's closing shot cheap. The film slows down in it's final scenes, allowing the audience to feel weight of his loss and how it affects the world.

I think what has made Batman and Superman such inspiring figures for readers throughout the years is that they are characters who have suffer tragedies but use those tragedies as the foundation to do good in the world. Superman will never be able to return to Krypton but he can save Earth from Krypton's fate. Batman fights criminals so another child doesn't have to lose his/her parents. They may go about things differently but Batman and Superman can find common ground, which itself is a hopeful sentiment. If Batman and Superman can get along, maybe we all can.

Some Thoughts on the R-Rated Cut of Batman v. Superman and Pre-release Backlash

I don't know if there's ever been a film with more pre-release backlash than Zack Snyder's upcoming Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice (henceforth abbreviated as BvS). The film is the follow-up to Snyder's 2013 Superman reboot, Man of Steel, a film I believe to be the most controversial and polarizing superhero/comic book based film ever made. The divided reaction to Man of Steel accounts for plenty of the scepticism surrounding BvS, as well as bias towards Marvel Studios' light-hearted output- as opposed to DC and Warner Bros.' more serious fare. Man of Steel struck many as too heavy, visually colourless and violent for a character like Superman. Even with the inclusion of the more acknowledged-as-dark character of Batman, similar criticisms have been directed at BvS; though I feel the film looks brighter in colour and much more "comic-booky."

This week the film became even more controversial with the announcement that there would be an R-rated cut of the film once it hits Blu-ray/DVD. This announcement sent the internet in to a fury. People criticized the announcement of this R-rated cut as a desperate attempt to capitalize on the success of Fox's Deadpool starring Ryan Reynolds, which has become the highest grossing X-Men related film in the franchise's history. Personally I think it's a stretch to suggest that the people behind the film featuring three of the most iconic superheroes- Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman- would feel a desire to chase the coattails of a Deadpool movie, particularly since the R-rated cut is not going to be in theatres.

Moreover Deadpool is financially successful but it's success is relative to it's budget, which is estimated at 58 million. BvS is 200 million. BvS has no reason to look to that film's success; and-again- this R-rated cut is going to be an optional extra on home video.

I think it all comes down to certain peoples' perception of WB and DC being desperate and incompetent, even though they appeared to have finally worked out the kinks in mapping out a plan for cinematic universe. Patty Jenkins' Wonder Woman is already filming with BvS' Gal Gadot and David Ayer's Suicide Squad- featuring the first big screen appearance of Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie) as well as several other notable DC villains- is coming out this August. 

I understand why many people don't like the idea of Superman and Batman being in a movie that even had an R-rated cut in the first place. These characters were made for children and children today still love these   characters. There's a fine line between being a little more adult and being unnecessarily violent. Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns (henceforth abbreviated as TDKR) is clearly an influence for Snyder- around the time of The Dark Knight's release back in 2008, Snyder had discussed wanting to film an adaptation of Miller's seminal graphic novel. 

Film critic Bob "MovieBob" Chipman believes TDKR to be an outdated story and that 90s comics, which TDKR anticipated, were a horrible time for the comic book medium- it was a time where stories became darker and grittier, essentially going for a more mature audience. I find that Chipman is against more serious comic-book based films, preferring the tone of Marvel Studios' films. He has labelled BvS "90s Comics: The Movie." I don't personally feel BvS is going to- or attempting to- reflect the 90s era of comic book writing. As with all adaptations of comic book characters, there's a mixing and matching of different eras and influences. TDKR is an influence but BvS is also likely to be it's own entity. And while some feel the entire enterprise is going to be grim and joyless, as evidenced in the trailers, there's going to be humour from Jesse Eisenberg's Lex Luthor and even Batman himself ("I thought she was with you.") Even the subtitle, "Dawn of Justice" implies a sense of hope and heroics. 

I see people on-line jumping to conclusions and believe Superman is going to be brutally murdering people in this film; they even that the whole movie is going to be a gory bloodbath. Snyder has directed a hard R-rated superhero film before- 2009's Watchmen- but since BvS is being released as PG-13, whatever R-rated content may be minimal. There's been speculation the R-rating may involve a flashback involving Jared Leto's the Joker (who's set to appear in Suicide Squad) murdering Jason Todd, the second Robin- similar to how Joker killed him in the comics. I do believe any R-rated footage will most likely involve Batman. This isn't to say Batman is going to be straight-up murdering people- but there may be a little more blood in the R-rated cut involving his scenes with criminals. And we have to remember this is a Batman who's been at it for 20 some years. He's become more brutal towards criminals. Superman may be the one who ultimately brings him back from and the edge. 

BvS may not be aimed directly at children but I sincerely believe it's characters will still be heroes, still be people kids can look up. The R-rated cut will be for older audiences who want to see a different version. Whether the R-rated cut becomes the "definitive" version as with the longer cuts of Watchmen or other films, won't be answered for quite some time. 

  

 

Some (Very) Brief Thoughts on J.J. Abrams Directing The Next Star Wars Film

So, it's been pretty much confirmed that J.J. Abrams will be directing the next Star Wars film, tentatively just known as Star Wars: Episode VII. As to be expected, when this news was announced, the internet exploded with lens flare jokes and strong opinions about the decision.  Now that the dust has slightly settled (Though I'm preparing for two years worth of MovieBob bitching and moaning, ala The Amazing Spider-Man), I'm going to weigh in with my thoughts. As always with this type of news, I'm decidely mixed. I've pretty much liked all of Abrams's films, especially his reboot of Star Trek, of which I loved the look and feel. Mission: Impossible 3 is the leanest of the Mission Impossible films and while I didn't feel Super 8 lived up to the quality of the early Spielberg films it was homaging, it showed that Abrams could go really low key if he wanted, and the stuff with the kids making the film was wonderful. Abrams strikes me as one of the smarter blockbuster directors working today. Even his visually hetic Star Trek was suprisingly character and plot driven. He wants to create blockbusters with some kind of soul, even if he's still perfecting his craft.

I think one problem with Abrams directing the next Star Wars film is simply that it feels redundant. It's the equivalent of if, after The Dark Knight, or after The Dark Knight Rises, Christopher Nolan went on to direct a Superman film (which is not too far off since he's a producer on Zack Snyder's Man of Steel). I've already seen Nolan's superhero saga, I don't need another one, even if Batman and Superman are very different characters. With Abrams, I've already seen his space adventure- and while Star Trek and Star Wars are very different franchises, the way Abrams directed Star Trek, it already felt it owed at least something to Star Wars.

I also feel that being a director of another large franchise, even if it's only for one film, squanders Abrams' potential to grow as a director and create really personal work. Super 8 showed that Abrams can do smaller, less visually busy work, and I'd like to see better versions of that film. Abrams' film career so far has seen him attached to pre-existing material that's made it hard for Abrams to form his own identity as a filmmaker. Even in Super 8, which he wrote, Abrams tried a little too hard to be Steven Spielberg. I want him to finally become an auteur, though I don't know if Abrams has that in mind.

Still, I wish Abrams and crew good luck on this project, which, c'mon, it's Star Wars, I'm definitely anticipating it. It's no doubt extremely exciting for Abrams to take the reigns of a saga that inspired so many people of his generation. It's also a great deal of pressure, and I hope he can work through that pressure and create a really great Star Wars film. Just cool it on the lens flares, okay?