10 @ a Time - Batman v Superman, Part 6

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice – Part Six: Must There Be a Superman?

Welcome to the sixth installment of “10 @ a Time: Batman v Superman.” Last week we talked about daddy issues and the Bruce/Lex parallel, but today we’re served a heaping helping of plot alongside a powerful meditation on what Superman ought to be in the 21^st century.

[For those playing the home game, we’re looking at the “Ultimate Edition” home video release; for today’s 10@T installment, we’re looking from 0:53:05 to 1:04:29.]

"In time... they will join you in the sun."

When Man of Steel came out in 2013, there were two major complaints, each constituting one half of the same coin: “Superman killed someone” and “Superman didn’t save anyone.” I’ll be honest – I have little patience for either of these critiques because they both fall victim to what I feel are some of the most pernicious attitudes toward comic book movies, the first of which is this belief that comic book movies must absolutely adhere to the source material as though it were gospel. It is supposed that, because Superman currently has a policy against taking the life of another, a film version must immediately operate under that rule. Such a policy, however, forgets the basic storytelling dictum that Superman did not form that rule ex nihilo – he took up that policy after the taking of a life was so grievous to him that he chose never to do it again. (Not coincidentally, Superman killed Zod in the comics in 1988, and also on film in Superman II in 1980.) Lest we forget, Man of Steel is literally Superman’s first day on the job.

The second critical trap to which comic book movies are often subjected is this ludicrous notion that any origin movie must conclude on a note where the bulk of the comic book adventures can be assumed to take place immediately thereafter. That is to say, a fair number of moviegoers expect an origin story to conclude such that the next movie might be an adaptation of their very favorite storyline, treating an origin story like the foam of Zeus’s head out of which Superman might arise, Athena-like. This is not to say that comic book movies haven’t done this; Batman Begins ended on a note of “Here we go!” while older films like Superman, Spider-Man, and X-Men have all taken similar tacks to the imagined “next chapter.”

But at the same time, we’ve seen an equally compelling approach taken to comic book movies that throw caution to the wind in their last moments in order to do something radical, something new, and something interesting. Cases in point? 2008 saw both Iron Man and The Dark Knight end in places that didn’t quite seem consistent with the comic book source material but felt very much of a piece with the personalities that the films were staking out. Tony Stark may never have been so flippant about his secret identity, but Robert Downey, Jr., felt very natural blowing the lid off his dual personas by announcing with a casual breath, “I am Iron Man.” Meanwhile, Christopher Nolan’s Batman volunteered to become the villain in order to save Gotham’s soul; I can’t tell you how many comic book stories have orbited around the notion that Batman must clear his good name, but Nolan’s take on Batman as a “dark knight” felt very organic for that character.

All of this is to say that I think moviegoers who didn’t like the ending of Man of Steel approached it in a very impatient and somewhat entitled fashion. They expected the film to pass the character on like a swaddled babe, saying, “Okay, now he’s Superman.” Instead, Zack Snyder wrapped up Man of Steel on a different kind of birth: “Welcome to the planet,” Lois told Clark Kent, welcoming him to his new place of employment but also welcoming this interpretation of the character into existence. Snyder took the character and said, “Here’s my Superman, and he’s just getting started.” Superman isn’t our Superman just yet; he’s a man of steel, and steel must be tempered.

Not pictured: A Superman who never saves anyone.

But a man can also make mistakes. Batman v Superman picks up less than two years later, and Superman is still learning who he can be. His greatest obstacle, however, is a litany of voices shouting that he is not behaving in the way that they expect him to behave. His greatest burden is expectation, and in this very interesting way I think Batman v Superman can be understood to be somewhat critic-proof, shoring itself up against its loudest critics by preemptively pitting its hero against them. In this “must there be a Superman” montage, we get an almost cacophonous Greek chorus of television talking heads chiming in their two cents about what Superman means to them and ought to mean to the rest of the world, but notably Superman himself is silent throughout, going about the business of saving lives regardless of what the rest of the world is saying about him.

Amid the din of voices, however, is the closest thing to a thesis statement on Superman when one (unseen) man says, “We have always created icons in our own image. What we’ve done is we project ourselves on to him. The fact is, maybe he’s not some sort of Devil or Jesus character. Maybe he’s just a guy trying to do the right thing.” So when people complain that this Superman doesn’t save anyone, here’s ten minutes that proves them wrong and explains why they’re wrong. Superman didn’t save as many people as you might have liked in the battle with Zod (though recall that he did kill Zod in order to save a family), but it almost seems that he’s spent the last eighteen months atoning for that inability, while all the world wants to beat him down and impose their vision and their will onto him.

It is, in short, the central conflict of the film, restated once more – will we allow our heroes to save us, or will we subjugate them to our definition of heroism and destroy all of us in the process? It strikes me as the heart of arrogance to hear Charlie Rose (playing Charlie Rose) ask Senator June Finch, “Must there be a Superman?” Her response is one of beautiful objective reality – “There is.”

There is a Superman, and he saves a lot of lives, but as we’ll see by the film’s end he’s equally valuable as a symbol of persistent heroism, one who redeems anyone who hears his gospel and one whose greatest monument is the survival of the world – his world – he saved. Just a reminder that the first time we see Clark Kent in Man of Steel, he’s saving lives aboard a burning oil rig. When we meet him in Batman v Superman, he’s saving lives in Nairomi, and the loss of life everyone wants to lay at his feet is actually the consequence of Lex Luthor’s smear campaign. (Ditto for the refrain that the Bat-brand is a death sentence for any prisoner bearing it; that, too, is being orchestrated by Lex through Knyazev.) This very montage, too, begins with Superman saving lives, at the expense of his investigation into Bruce Wayne, who he follows down the steps in Lex’s home. It’s fascinating that this salvation sequence is apparently set amid a Día de los Muertos festival; when Superman is swallowed by a throng of those honoring the Day of the Dead, it’s one more version of the commentary that Superman is being smothered by the weight of expectation, but it’s also a nice bit of foreshadowing of where the film is going to go.

"Here's the truth: a reporter got greedy for a scoop and went where she shouldn't have..."

The rest of this section is filled out with plot developments – Lois’s investigation into the bullet from Nairomi (which takes her to an old friend – see below), Lex’s provocation of Wally Keefe into confronting Superman on Capitol Hill, and Bruce’s reclamation of the stolen relay device. But there are also a number of echoes and callbacks here that merit acknowledgment. Clark phones up Martha Kent to ask why his earth father never left Kansas; it’s a moment of introspection that humanizes Superman, and I’m sorry it wasn’t included in the theatrical release because it really grounds Clark’s arc in this film as one about a search for belonging. He learns that Jonathan Kent never left Kansas because he didn’t need to – he’d found his world. This makes Superman’s statement to Lois – “This is my world” – all the more poignant and brings him into conversation with Bruce and Lex’s unresolved “daddy issues.”

We also get to revisit the delightful smug superiority of Lex Luthor, who can’t resist taunting Wally Keefe. Lex appears to him in a wheelchair, pretending for a moment that he too is paralyzed before rising from the chair and introducing himself as “just a man... [who wants] to help you stand for something.” What’s striking to me is the way that Wally mirrors his benefactor’s flair for the dramatic when he too pivots his wheelchair to speak with Senator Finch; it’s the same angle of rotation, same camera shot. With all the reasons Wally has not to want to live anymore, I’ve wondered just how complicit he was in Lex’s plot to bomb the Capitol, though Lois will later suggest (in a scene exclusive to the Ultimate Edition) that Wally didn’t know his wheelchair is rigged with explosives.

"It's about what you believe - and I believe in love."

Finally, we’ve got a pitch-perfect sequence between Bruce and Diana, which plays out like a superpowered version of His Girl Friday with some of the snappiest banter since Tony Stark and Pepper Potts. A good number of us still remember the way that Justice League Unlimited romantically paired Batman with Wonder Woman, and with Superman clearly in love with Lois Lane here, I do wonder if the movie universe will link Bruce to Diana. (Having Steve Trevor meet her a century ago clears that possibility away.) They definitely have a chemistry here, playing on the Shakespearean tradition of Beatrice and Benedick whose capacity to match with each other is represented by their ability to keep up in dialogue.

BRUCE: Excuse me, miss. The other night, you took something that doesn’t belong to you. Stealing’s not polite.
DIANA: Is it stealing if you steal from another thief?
[...]
BRUCE: You know, I bet with that dress nine out of ten men would let you get away with anything.
DIANA: But you’re the tenth.
BRUCE: I’m guessing the first... to see through that ‘babe in the woods’ act. You don’t know me, but I’ve known a few women like you.
DIANA: Oh, I don’t think you’ve ever known a woman like me. You know, it’s true what they say about little boys: Born with no natural inclination to share.

It’s snappy dialogue, to be sure, but Ben Affleck and Gal Gadot really sell it. I especially appreciate the way that this conversation also alludes to the long history each character possesses; I’m catching what seem to be winks at Catwoman, Greek heroes like Hercules, a long line of men bamboozled by Diana, and an equally long list of women who have tried to pull one over on Batman. Watching Affleck puzzle through this woman who exists as a cipher, I always wonder how different the movie would have read if we didn’t know ahead of time that she was Wonder Woman. It might have been neat to wonder if she was Catwoman or Talia al Ghul or someone else, but then again I understand the need to let folks know in advance that this movie wouldn’t just be three dudes slugging it out for two and a half hours.

Who knows? Maybe recognizing that she’s Wonder Woman ahead of Bruce allows us to really appreciate what Gadot does with the character, how she manages to imbue her with grace and mystery, with unspoken power and a restrained warrior’s intensity. Additionally, it’s one more thing that we can see that Bruce can’t, that his closest friends are right in front of him, if only he would choose to let them in, to trust them. The mystery of the photograph, hard proof of her identity, is one more thread to pull the audience’s attention, and while some might say this is one plot thread too many, I love the way Snyder pads the film out with enough plotlines to fill a universe. It’s like getting three movies in one.

Next time, we have a nap and a knightmare and awaken in a flash.

Observations and Annotations

• The television talking heads montage is, I think, a nod to a similar stylistic feature of The Dark Knight Returns, in which Frank Miller juxtaposes Batman’s return from retirement with a barrage of 24-hour news coverage, replete with commentators with varying degrees of moral integrity.
• The music playing over the montage is “Day of the Dead” from the score by Hans Zimmer and Junkie XL. It’s a slowed-down version of a musical motif associated with Krypton, heard in Man of Steel when Jor-El recovers the codex and when Kal-El’s rocket blasts toward earth. It’s a nice link to tie the movies together, but it also speaks to the question of what precisely Krypton’s legacy will be.
• June Finch is a Democratic Senator from Kentucky, in this day and age? Pull the other one. So is she Rand Paul or Mitch McConnell?
• Neil deGrasse Tyson shows up in the montage, and he has the unusual distinction of being the only person in the montage to have appeared in the comics! Tyson showed up in Action Comics #14 (November 2012), where he helped Superman find Krypton in the night sky.
• Another familiar face in the montage is Glen Woodburn, the blogger from Man of Steel who published Lois’s piece on Superman when the Daily Planet wouldn’t. His name is a portmanteau of Woodward & Bernstein, I’m sure.
• We also touch base with Calvin Swanwick, who was a general last time we saw him in Man of Steel. His exploits during the Battle of Metropolis likely secured him this position in the President’s cabinet as Secretary of State.
• The Ultimate Edition features a cameo from Jena Malone. While the rumor mill guessed that she was playing Barbara Gordon, she’s actually Jenet Klyburn, a STAR Labs scientist from mid-70s Superman comics, which is a pretty deep cut into the DC mythology, but I appreciate that Snyder and company went back to the source material rather than invent a scientific analyst out of whole cloth.
• Perry White tells Clark, “It’s not 1938,” a reference which I would hope is lost on few in the audience – Superman debuted in 1938. (Batman would arrive a year later.)
• “Nobody cares about Clark Kent taking on the Batman.” Well, yes and no...
• At the museum ball, we meet curator James Harmon and hear about the Sultan of Hajar. Unlike Jenet Klyburn, these don’t appear to be references to preexisting DC continuity. I’m a little surprised that they went with Hajar instead of Corto Maltese, which is mentioned in The Dark Knight Returns and in Tim Burton’s 1989 Batman.
• In another example of forward continuity, we have since learned from Wonder Woman that Diana Prince works as director of antiquities at the Louvre, which explains her presence at this gala event and clarifies why the museum curator would personally take time to show her the exhibits.
• Speaking of exhibits, the star attraction is the Sword of Alexander, which cut the Gordian knot. That story has become a metaphor for creative, out-of-the-box thinking, but it’s also featured prominently in the comic series Watchmen, whose feature film adaptation was directed by – you guessed it – Zack Snyder.