OK, About this Batman vs. Superman Thing... / Mark Jarret Chavous

OK, About this Batman vs. Superman Thing...

Mark Jarret Chavous

Earlier this year (April 2016), I wrote about the much-hyped Warner Brothers / DC movie release, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. This film was long awaited and much anticipated, and was introduced to much fanfare—especially with the casting of Ben Affleck as Batman, who joined Henry Cavill as Superman and newcomer Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman. The movie opened huge, but then trailed off after it was hit with one scathing review after another. It still made a profit, but it was not the nuclear-powered blockbuster that had been predicted and that certainly WB/DC had wanted. I said back then that it wasn’t a terrible movie, and I still feel that way, after having since seen it a couple more times. But it could have been so much better.

I thought the battle scenes were well done. Use of CGI and special effects in this day and age is entirely subjective, so I don’t plan to quibble about this and that. But it did have realistic renderings of Metropolis’s buildings coming down; because of 9/11, we now know that this isn’t just escapist fantasy—it can really happen. Director Zak Snyder has made a good point that an epic battle between super-powered foes has to have serious collateral damage, which was in earnest in the Superman movie that preceded this one. He continued that to a lesser extent with Doomsday in this film, though I’m thinking Doomsday wasn’t really needed here and deserves a separate movie to cover an epic conflict with Superman. That conflict was done so well in the comics with ‘The Death of Superman’ storyline back in the ’90s, spearheaded by writer/artist Dan Jurgens. While the movie gave a reason for how he came to be (after Luthor proved to be a very quick study on Kyrptonian science), this wasn’t nearly as believable as Jurgens’s version in the books. Jurgens’s Doomsday was a non-Kryptonian alien from another galaxy gone out of control, and not just a Frankenstein ultra-clone conversion from the dead tissue of the villain Zod. The fight between Batman and Superman was done well, as not only the emotions but also the prowess of each character was tapped into generously and thoughtfully. Each tapped into his inner rage; Batman, concerned about an alien too powerful and having to employ any means to stop it, and Superman, finally realizing the truth about Batman but not being able to reach him without beating on him. The climax of this fight, where a triumphant Batman stands over Superman about to deliver a killing blow (not exactly within the character of Batman), and Superman gives him pause by mentioning the name Martha—a name shared by both their mothers—caught quite a bit of grief from many viewers and critics; but I actually thought this was clever. Batman keeps his emotions close to the vest, obviously, but the mere mention of his mother’s name was bound to bring some emotional response. Lois Lane then fills in the blanks and the Batman withdraws his kryptonite-armed weapon, quickly realizing there may be more common ground between the two titans than he thought. That was probably the only way to resolve this eagerly anticipated and much heralded battle: by finding that which binds them rather than divides them (a lesson our current politicos might do well to emulate). Indeed, “Martha” seemed to be quite effective, thus avoiding having each hero tell his tragic story, which would have taken a lifetime in the film. “Martha” made both of them see their vulnerabilities as well as their strengths.

Those were the things I liked about the movie. But there were substantial issues that prevented a decent film from being a great film. Marvel has shown remarkable discipline in staying true to its characters even after reboots. Warner Brothers and DC have been a lot more spotty, at least in the films. DC has to be careful in not allowing the screenwriters and directors to take too much license with these characters—obviously, you’re looking to build a huge following, but don’t piss off the fan base that made films like this viable. You score with the book fans, and the word of mouth alone will do your marketing for you. Here’s my take on what held this film back from its full potential:

Issues

1) The characterization of Lex Luthor. This was an insult to DC fans all over; an atrocious characterization, the absolute worst it could have been. There is no other way of saying it. This is not a criticism of actor Jesse Eisenberg, who unquestionably put his all into the role. But the decision to portray the character as a real loose cannon—manic, volatile, and somewhat unpredictable—was a terrible one; it is just not who Luthor is. Eisenberg’s portrayal might have been a lot more at home on Jack A. Napier, better known as The Joker. Whereas the Joker is a head gasket waiting to blow at any time, Luthor is the epitome of the cool, collected and cold-hearted businessman who measures every step he makes. Clancy Brown, a longtime character actor, has played Luthor in many of the cartoon treatments worked on by Alan Burnett, and he nails it every time. I will give the movie a little credit by acknowledging that the intellect of Luthor is more than strong enough to have figured out a long time ago Batman and Superman’s real identities – a small plot device that would be a huge issue for the comic books to deal with. But the movie characterization turned off a great many fans. In explaining how he prepared for the role, Eisenberg said, “When you’re doing a movie like this and playing a character that’s already been played, the further away it is from those previous incarnations the better. Because chances are, especially with a guy like Gene Hackman or Kevin Spacey, you’re not going to get favorably compared” (Los Angeles Times, 8 January 2016). Mr. Eisenberg, that’s the chance you take. No matter how you played Luthor, the comparison with Hackman and Spacey was inevitable. And you have to be careful with a character like Luthor. Unlike other villains, Luthor has been around for decades, carefully developed and evolved by DC. My suggestion to you and any other actors looking at this role is to avoid being concerned about the other actors who have played Luthor, and worry simply about playing Luthor.

A relatively new theme for Luthor coming from the comics, one that has been taken up by the animated treatments (Thanks again, Alan Burnett), is Lex Luthor’s extraterrestrial bigotry. The Luthor of today hardly calls Superman by his heroic moniker, instead referring disdainfully to him as “The Alien”. This was pure genius by DC, and could have served as a great segue for Luthor getting into politics and eventually getting elected as President. That would have been a theme full of dramatic potential for Luthor, and one which would have had scary parallels with all-too-well-known recent political events. Instead, that other-worldly paranoia (though non-bigoted, in my humble opinion) was transferred to the Batman, which makes little sense. Luthor’s bigotry would have been a slam dunk.

2) Metropolis and Gotham City located as neighboring cities. I’m not sure why this decision was made. While I’ve never seen just how these two (fictional) cities relate to each other geographically, it is clear to most everyone that in the books they are a substantial distance away from each other; something along the lines of New York to Chicago or even New York to Los Angeles. To present them as if they were twin cities—like Minneapolis–St. Paul or Dallas–Fort Worth—doesn’t make sense, otherwise Superman would have encroached upon Gotham long before the time of this movie’s events taking place (once again, thank-you John Byrne). I presume the idea about giving each DC town (in the books) its own real space was so that each hero had his “turf” that he would handle alone, thus keeping conflicts to a minimum. Marvel obviously took a different approach, putting most of their heroes in New York, and somehow they seemed to have worked it out; just stay out of Hell’s Kitchen. I find it hard to believe that the corruption so prevalent in Gotham City would not have spread over into Metropolis at some point prior to the direct conflict between Batman and Superman if the cities were that close.

3) Why does Batman leave a brand on a perp? Really? This is not Zorro (who did inspire Bruce Wayne to become the Batman) or even The Phantom, who leave marks on criminals. The Batman investigates, captures, and leaves the perps for the police. He is not interested in disfiguring anyone. The small metal bat, thrown and imbedded in the wall, was enough of a call sign. The Batman prefers to work in the shadows, leaving little evidence of his presence other than the quaking fear of those left behind, bound and gagged, in his wake.

4) Batman using a gun, even in a dream sequence. The very idea of the Batman even picking up a gun that shoots lead, let alone using it in anger, was very disappointing. The Batman has far too disciplined a mind to allow that to happen, even in a dream sequence. DC has spent years evolving and refining this aspect of The Dark Knight’s character, and for very legitimate reasons, given the shooting death of his parents. Bruce Wayne even worked on a project with Lex Luthor but cut it off immediately upon finding out Luthor wanted to weaponize it (again, executed brilliantly by Alan Burnett and the animation group at Warner Brothers).

5) The Capitol Scene with Investigative Committee. This scene was mentioned by many critics as a lost opportunity for DC to show how their heroes would deal with legitimate questions concerning their right to even merely exist, let alone function, within a society that has laws and security forces, if ill-equipped to handle a nemesis such as Doomsday. I found it interesting how this film (barely) touched upon the same issue that Marvel was dealing with quite capably in the film Captain America: Civil War; and if followed through it would have been fascinating to see what resolution DC would have come up with in comparison to Marvel. But we never got the chance to see, because Luthor (unexplainably) blew up the Capital building. We never got Superman’s answer to June Finch’s (Holly Hunter) questions. There are a couple of big problems with this scene. This WOMD attack taking out an entire legislative body, mass murder on a grand scale, would have been more worthy of the Joker, making my earlier supposition of Eisenberg’s playing on Luthor even more apt than ever. This is not to say Luthor isn’t quite capable of killing if he feels it’s necessary; but mass murder on this very showy scale is simply not his style. Luthor is someone who likes to pursue his schemes under the radar while presenting a positive image to the public. Besides, Luthor conceivably would have had many of those congressmen on his payroll anyway. Secondly, the Luthor that fans of both the comics and animation know would simply get a huge kick out of watching Superman squirm and struggle in public to answer questions justifying his very existence, and probably would have sent Congress various materials validating the theory that Superman is more dangerous than helpful. Luthor is calculating enough to use Congress to achieve his goal of destroying Superman, or at the very least, delegitimizing him, without lifting a finger and all by the book. That would have added big drama to the picture, and it would compel Batman to choose sides on it since he might have to go through that same scrutiny himself someday (if they could catch him).

6) Doomsday. As I said earlier, I am not convinced Doomsday was necessary for this picture. It added too much and subtracted from other elements that probably could have used more attention. You’ve already got a heavy influence from Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns and then you throw in Doomsday too? And then throw in Wonder Woman just to help battle Doomsday? Too many conflicting themes. As I also said earlier, Doomsday is a picture all by itself; better to bring him along right around the time The Justice League begins to come together, which would have been a very good parallel to Jurgens’s The Death Of Superman and thus far more effective. Brainiac would have been a much better villain for this picture; it could have pulled from Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman all their strengths and exposed their weaknesses. Batman’s confidence in his investigative skills, as well as his vulnerability; Superman’s sentimentality for his home planet of Krypton and passionate defense for his new home; and Wonder Woman’s adjusting to a new world where technology is king while holding to her Amazonian roots. That would have been fascinating.

We all have opinions, and mine is just as subjective as the other. But losing sight of what makes these characters tick is not that subjective. Batman in the books doesn’t like guns. Superman’s favorite movie is To Kill A Mockingbird. Neither Batman nor Superman wants to kill. Just knowing simple things like that will allow most good filmmakers a shot at coming up with something really special. Don’t be so obsessed at injecting your vision; use what’s already there and use it to your best advantage. The books have already worked out most of the issues you’re facing now, and at a high level. You don’t have to re-invent the wheel every time – just evolve it.

DC, now that you’ve moved your entire operation out to Los Angeles and are supposedly breaking bread and pink tofu with your Warner Brothers kissing cousins, I’d keep a tighter rein on the cinematic treatments. Start by working closer with WB animation. They really know what they are doing.

And so it goes.