Batman v Superman Analysis: A measured response

I never really expected to make more responses on this blog. Especially in English. But it just so happens, that I found the perfect material for this one.

DC movie fanbase has been on my mind for quite a while now, and I actually intended to write someday an article about them in particular, but I couldn’t really find a perfect material for such article. There wasn’t really a worthy attempt to make a serious breakdown of DCEU films by any of their fans.

Fortunately, I finally got it. This little gem, written by Scott Lerer, was found by me accidentally, when the author came into Dan Olson’s mentions, to accuse him of “not understanding filmmaking”. When I asked Scott, if he understands it himself, he decided to tell me that he wrote an entire analysis of “Batman v Superman”, where, apparently, all his deep knowledge of cinema should be especially evident.

It ended up being one of the most misguided, hilariously bad attempts at a serious film analysis made by someone, who clearly doesn’t have a strong footing in neither film criticism, nor filmmaking.

This is gonna be a lengthy one, folks, and yeah, I’ll admit, I’m doing it mostly for fun. But I actually think, that this response will provide a good insight on the problems with DCEU fanbase, and maybe some other things.

So, let’s do this thing!

The response itself

I would like to start off by thanking the author, Scott Lerer, for not completely demonizing the critics in the article, and not filling it with insults aimed at them, unlike some other DCEU apologists do (*cough* Angry Joe *cough*). The analysis mostly consists of apologetics made about the movie and its creative decisions, so it’s nice to see someone who didn’t completely vilify other critics.

·       Superman illustrates the film’s most recognizable themes: If you are a non-cynical person in a cynical world, either you will change the cynical world, or the cynical word will change you (Mark Hughes). This is the exact situation that Superman is in. He tries to do the most heroic deed possible, but there is always going to be unintended negative repercussions. The world is constantly criticizing him no matter what action he takes. He figures that he can only do what he thinks are the right actions because, if he tries to do what others order him to do, they will be hypocritical and possibly make him not follow their orders, or in trying to please everyone he will end up pleasing no one.

This is the very first paragraph of this analysis (not counting the films synopsis and introduction), and it’s already really confusing.

Technically, yes, if you squint, and add a lot of imagination, you can technically say that this is what the movie is about. But that’s one hell of a stretch.

The statements in this paragraph are really vague, showing that the author makes quite a lot of things up. Like, the phrase “trying to do the most heroic deed, but always ending up with negative repercussions”. If there are negative repercussions, doesn’t it mean that you’re, as a hero, doing something wrong?

I am really not sure about the whole “world criticizing Superman” thing. Superman seems to be mostly regarded as a hero by public at large. They built a statue of him, Bruce Wayne remarks later that Daily Bugle praises him in their pieces. People discuss him on TV, but it doesn’t seem like most public is really all that against him. I don’t even understand why it matters. Superman mostly watches public react to him from TV. He never has to actually face them and take responsibility for his actions (yes, the court scene changes that, and we’ll get to it way later). The previous movie, “Man of Steel”, already established with its ending (when Superman crashes a satellite) that Superman gives no fucks about authority or people.

In “Batman v Superman”, Superman never mentions or discusses getting or following orders. This paragraph is incredibly misleading. And the phrase “in trying to please everyone he will end up pleasing no one” is just wrong. Superman is not some musician or company CEO who has to pick his target audience. He is a superhero. His job is to save people. All people. He has to save everyone, and has all powers in the world to do so. That’s why he saves Luthor from Doomsday at the very end (the scene is pretty badly shot, so I won’t blame you if you missed that moment)

·       When Batman is about to kill Superman, Superman does not try to kill Batman.

This is an utter lie. Superman gets a task from Luthor to kill Batman. He later meets Lois on the ground, and says to her “I have to convince him to help me, or I will have to kill him”. He is absolutely ready to kill Batman, if necessary.

And when they finally fight, Superman is clearly fighting Batman with an intention to hurt him. He tries to reason with him at first, but then just decides to punch him through a building. Frankly, narratively, I have no freaking idea what is Superman trying to achieve here. He clearly has an upper hand from the start. Batmans weapons do nothing to him. I don’t know why the heck he starts punching him and throwing him, when in reality he can just grab him by the shoulders and explain the whole deal with Martha. Batman would not be able to get out of his grip. And Superman, though ready for it, doesn’t really want to kill Batman. So I have no idea why he just keeps on fighting. Maybe he is just sick of Batmans shit. But even when he temporarily regains his powers, after being shot with kryptonite, he doesn’t try to fly away or stop the fight. Just keeps on beating up Batman. He is CLEARLY TRYING TO KILL HIM AT THIS POINT.

·       All Superman cares about is saving his family, and with barely any breath, yells out to Bruce to save his mother Martha Kent. This makes Batman see that Superman truly is a good person inside and makes Batman realize that he has lost focus, and Superman is a good hero, just as Batman was.

That’s a really weird way to see this scene. Superman is completely beaten and it’s clear by now that Batman is going to kill him. Asking for mercy would be pointless in this situation. So, of course Superman tries to tell him about Martha.

Furthermore, there isn’t anything all that heroic about wanting to save your family. I mean, of course, you don’t abandon them, but it doesn’t mean that trying to save your family or loved ones is some incredibly selfless act. Even some villains often do it. Zod basically was trying to save his people, when invading the Earth. He was trying to give them new home. It doesn’t exactly show that you are a good person. Even bad people sometimes have someone they care for.

·       Before changing the cynical world, Superman changes Batman, a good heroic person who was corrupted by the cynical world. Superman does what he thinks is heroic and finally, he changes the cynical world from hating him to loving him, and makes Batman a more heroic person.

Also wrong. Superman says “no one stays good in this world” when flying off to face Batman. And, as I already said, he is clearly ready to kill Batman. He also kills Doomsday in the movie. Yes, Doomsday is a monster, who would destroy everything and kill everyone, but it’s still a murder. Remember “Man of Steel”? How upset Superman was there about killing Zod? That guy, who was going to kill everyone? Yeah, no such remorse for Doomsday (who is still, technically, Zod, by the way. So that makes it a second time Supes killed the guy). I guess it’s only human and worth empathy, if it speaks and looks like a human.

On the other hand, we have Batman, who seemingly goes through some kind of character arc, presumably becoming a better person…but no, not really. In the beginning of the movie, Batman brands people, which is really monstrous. And in the end of the movie, he clearly was going to do the same thing to Luthor (why else would he bring that thing in prison?). He also kills A LOT of people before, and after his change of heart with Superman.

Clearly, Batman didn’t change a bit, and Superman became more cynical and evil (though, actually, he already was all that, it just was never framed that way by the movies).

·       Superman is not appreciated for this while he is alive though. Just like many famous artists are only called great and have their work revered once they have died, Superman’s work is only realized by the people of Earth as heroic once he has died fighting Doomsday

So, Superman is an artist now? Okay…

I get what you’re saying here, Scott, but your choice of words in this sentence is poor. 

Also, what about that giant-ass statue of Supes in Metropolis? Doesn’t it count as being appreciated?

·       Superman changed the cynical word, and did not let the cynical world change him.

No, he didn’t. Zack Snyder clearly loves his dark, cynical vision of DC universe, and he in no way actually criticizes such world. He loves it.

In Suicide Squad, which takes place in the same universe after Superman’s death, it’s still the same grim-dark cynical world. A world, where government forces villains to do jobs for them. A world, where prison guards torture their inmates for fun.

Justice League trailer also features the same dark, grey, joyless color palette. And one of the most colorful and absurd superheroes in history, Aquaman, is portrayed as hairy biker, who tries to choke Bruce Wayne in a scene, where they, presumably, meet for the first time. The world clearly didn’t change to better. Nor will it. Snyder just loves this joyless, edgy style, and no one seems to be stopping him.

·       The second act that the cynical world does to change Batman is the battle of Metropolis. This is the second scene in the film, recapping events of Man of Steel. This scene opens with a wonderful Kubrick like transition, which displays the words “MANKIND IS INTRODUCED TO THE SUPERMAN”.

Okay, I’ll admit that I am not the biggest expert on Kubrick, but I was really confused the “Kubrick like transition” part of this sentence. What exactly does make that transition “Kubrick-like”? Kubrick was mostly famous for creative visual transitions, like that bit in “2001: a space odyssey”, when a primate throws a bone in the air, and then the movie cuts to an image of spaceship, floating in the air, making a similar motion.

I later contacted the author of analysis, Scott Lerer, on twitter, and he explained that he meant transitions like the ones in “Shining”, when the movie used text to show us what day it is.

Except it’s not actually “Kubrick like”. Kubrick is not famous for these transitions, nor did he popularize them. Using text to set up a scene is one of the oldest techniques in all cinema. It originated in b&w cinema. Here’s such technique in “The General”, starring Buster Keaton. And it’s still used to this day. Many modern blockbusters have text explaining where the next scene takes place. Only usually they put the text on the bottom of a frame, below the images of the location.

So, nothing about this transition is Kubrick-like or all that creative, or genius. It’s just Scott Lerer, trying to make something in a movie seem more significant, than it really is.

·       Batman blames Superman for these attacks as Superman’s fight with General Zod is wrecking the city and killing many innocent people. Batman, in a bad mental state, does not consider that this is hypocritical, considering how Batman is unable to stop collateral damage from hurting criminals

I love how the author here admits, that Batman’s behavior is hypocritical, but tries to justify it with Batman being mentally unstable. I imagine, you can explain quite a lot of bad screenwriting by “the character is just insane, really”.

·       Many have said that Batman kills people in this film, which is simply not true. He is a character who has flaws, just like any other well-written character. Batman is powerless to stop collateral damage from hurting, and sometimes killing criminals. His vehicles use rubber bullets (not real bullets as some misinformed have suggested) stopping criminals. On three occasions in the film, Batman hits a criminal who is throwing a grenade. Therefore, the grenade bounces towards the criminal, who is injured from the explosion. The thought that Batman actually murdered anyone in this film is absurd.

Oh my fucking god, are we in some serious denial here…Gosh, where to start?

First of all, Batman killing criminals is NEVER presented by the movie as a character flaw. It is slightly different in “Ultimate Cut” of the movie, but still, not by much. Batman kills a lot of people all the time, and it rarely bothers anyone. It would be a character flaw, if Batman actually learned not to kill, when sparing Superman. And the first time I saw the movie, I actually thought that this was it. This was his arc.

NOPE! He immediately goes to that warehouse, and kills at least 20 more people mercilessly. Immediately after his moment of redemption. This is terrible screenwriting.

And no, Scott. Batman can stop the collateral damage by not causing it in the first place! This is why, in the comics, Batman is a ninja, and mostly acts quietly, in the shadows. He is not a crazy dude with a tank, that latest movies portray him as.

Rubber bullets do jack-shit, when Batman BLOWS UP A FUCKING CAR, with people still in it.

Batman also could throw the grenade in another direction. Or, once again, try taking out criminals quietly, using stealth tactics. Remember those smoke bombs, he used in Burton movies? Man, would these come in handy in that warehouse, eh? Wouldn’t that make using grenades harder for all these criminals, huh?

The mental gymnastics Scott went through to proof that Batman doesn’t kill in the movie are insane.

Furthermore, Zack Snyder himself admits that Batman kills people. I know this, because Scott sent me a link with Zack explaining why Batman kills in the movie. Only…he doesn’t explain it. He just says that “it’s the way it was in Miller’s comic”. Never explaining the narrative or any other reason for Batman killing people. So, clearly Batman is killing people, if even the director admits it.

I also tried talking to Scott about it on twitter, and here’s what he had to say:

So, apparently murder isn’t murder anymore, if you do it indirectly, or in a vehicle. Batman probably should’ve just hit kryptonited Supes with his car, and it would be morally justifiable. And the movie would be shorter.

So, does that mean that Lex Luthor is not a bad guy anymore? Cause you know, he never kills anyone in a movie with his own hands. If it applies to Batman, why not him too?

·       When Batman is ready to kill Superman, Batman says that Superman, “was never even a man”, comparing Clark to a wild animal.

No, it’s actually more of a macho-bravado bullshit, Batman (and Snyder) believe in. Batman thinks that what makes him a man is struggle and suffering he endured. He believes that Superman is not a man, because he had these powers from birth and never had to struggle for anything.

·       In the dream, he can’t see himself. Only the audience can see what this Batman is doing in the dream.

WTF does this even mean? How does he not see himself in a dream? How can you see yourself at all!? I can’t see myself right now! Cause you know, first person view…

·       The director Zack Snyder does a great job here. Batman breaks through a wall to grab one of the criminals. This is a traditional horror movie trope of a scary monster or ghost going through a wall.

Not really. Action heroes, like Robocop and Terminator also did this a lot.

·       It works to great effect here, as the criminals are scared of Batman, and think of him, as an urban legend, such as a scary monster or ghost.

Our hero, everybody! Does everything a horror-monster would do, but worry not! He’s on our side!

·       Meanwhile, Batman, instead of killing Knyazev, shoots his flamethrower’s tank, and dives for Martha Kent. Batman saves both Martha Kent and Knyazev, managing to stop people from getting killed. Some people have complained that Batman kills Knyazev. This complaint is a misinterpretation of both the scene and Batman’s mental abilities.

Jesus Christ I can’t even believe someone wrote this thing unironically. Batman saves a guy by blowing him up.

I can’t even say anything else about this part. It speaks for itself. Moving on.

·       The simple explanation to this is Batman’s failing mental state. Bruce Wayne says many things irrationally, so he can rationalize it internally. Once his mental state becomes better and he acts more heroic, he stops using this hypocritical rational. All aspects of the character are brought out like no other film depiction before with Batman actually being a detective and mentally ill, and having well-made fight scenes.

It’s far not the first time I heard someone justify questionable deeds by failing mental state. Though, usually it’s used to justify horrible mass-shootings. “No, the guy wasn’t a homophobe, he was just mentally ill”.

It may surprise you, but mentally ill people are not zombies, incapable of making decisions. They still think and feel, and can be accountable for their actions. They are still people, not some raging monsters that kill everything in their site. You know, that’s why we have special facilities for them, where we try to cure them.

Though, it’s a bit off topic. Truth is, Scott does here the same thing he did before: trying to explain terribly written character motivation by mental instability of a character. And I am not saying that it’s always not the case. Yes, sometimes characters have flaws, and they deal with these flaws over the course of the movie. Or they don’t. Characters, like Walter White, Daniel Plainview, ANYEONE in Game of Thrones do some terrible shit. But we empathize with them, because we understand their motivations and their reasoning. We see how they got to that point in life. This is not the case with Batman, cause we can’t even understand his motivations or reasoning. And, as I said earlier, nothing in the movie suggests that we are supposed to be judging Batman’s murders and his flimsy justifications for it.

·       The film’s main antagonist is Lex Luthor played by Jessie Eisenberg. Lex Luthor, just like Batman, feels powerless. Unlike Batman, it is out of out of jealousy though. Luthor thought of himself as a great human who would lead mankind with his great intellect and vast finances.

This is where the author starts, for lack of a better word, seeing stuff that isn’t there. The description of Luthor as a great human who will lead mankind is mostly from the comics. Luthor in “BvS” doesn’t even suggest such things anywhere. He doesn’t seem ever concerned with humanity, or leading them.

Frankly, his motivations and reasons are the most confusing in the movie, so no one is really able to tell what the heck he wants. But we’re just getting started with him.

·       Terrio, Snyder, and Eisenberg present Luthor as a Trump like figure, but born into the modern age alongside the young Silicon Valley millionaires. Just like how this version of Luthor is an amalgamation of the old money like Donald Trump and Richard Branson, and the new money such as Mark Zuckerberg; Luthor is also an amalgamation of the golden age mad scientist and the 1986 reinvention billionaire Lex.

·       The parallels to United States presidential candidate Donald Trump may go over the head of some viewers. Both of them own wealthy companies, and continue the success of what his parents started and gave them. Both are motivated by a strong sense of nationalism, and see a large threat to that.

·       Just as Trump references the old America that he finds superior, Luthor calls back several times to an even older America, one he never experienced and heard only people dream of it, the land of freedom and opportunity.

Highly unlikely. The movie was in production way before the whole Trump-craze truly picked up. And nothing about Jessie’s portrayal even suggests Trump. Lex in BvS is quiet, insecure, a bit whiny, has high pitched voice, bumbles, and is a terrible orator. He also has long hair, he  is weak physically, both which are often considered “feminine qualities”.

Trump is loud, dumb, obnoxious, speaks terribly but pretty confidently, and tries his best to present himself as “traditionally masculine”.

Jessie’s Lex is clearly just another example in a series of villain versions of Steve Jobs or Zuckerberg, which are so popular in movies these days.

Also, the description “owns a wealthy company, inherited from parents; nationalist” fits pretty well with Bruce Wayne too, doesn’t it? Heck, I’d say it fits even more, considering how xenophobic he is, and that he even quotes Dick Cheney at some point. To come think of it, this description also fits Tony Start from Marvel Universe. And many, many other rich people in fiction. Are they all Trump-figures?

No, they’re not. It’s more likely that Jessie’s Lex is not a Trump figure at all.

·       If Batman kills Superman, Luthor proves that Superman isn’t good enough to save the humans.  If Doomsday does it, then Lex can kill Doomsday and look like humanity’s leader

This is completely pulled out of author’s ass. Nothing in the entire movie in any way suggests that Luthor was going to kill Doomsday, or even knew how to do it. It’s implied that he expected to be able to control it, but once that’s failed he had no plan B. He had no secret stash of Kryptonite for such occasion. This part is horseshit, and Scott should be ashamed of himself for misinforming his potential readers.

·       Hans Zimmer does great with the score. Each character has their own theme song that delves into their character by the instrument and sound. Superman’s theme is played using mainly drums to emphasize the stoic, peaceful, methodical nature of Superman. Batman’s theme uses mainly horns to emphasize the hunter idea, as well as something more loud, frightening, and unknown. Wonder Woman’s theme uses mainly electric guitar to emphasize her foreign roots, and to emphasize the surprise of her first appearance in the film.

What Scott here tries to present as a genius creative move by Hans Zimmer, is actually basic music theory. The idea to make the music fitting to the action or the character on screen is not some incredible stroke of genius invented in “BvS”. It was used in cinema from its inception, and before that was used in opera and theater. Scott tries to give a movie praise for doing what all movies have been doing since movie scores were invented. Maybe he just lives in a parallel universe, where The Battle for Helm’s Deep is accompanied by the music from “Monty Python’s Flying Circus”. In that case, yes, “BvS” might be considered an eye-opener.

I also love the use of comparisons here. Nothing says peaceful and stoic like fucking drums.

And what is so foreign about electric guitar? To whom exactly is it foreign?

But I left the best for the last…

·       Lex Luthor’s theme uses strings to demonstrate how he is pulling the strings, and manipulating things behind the scenes.

Parts like this one are the reason I decided to do this response in the first place. This is an incredibly funny explanation of the creative choice of music here.

Hey, maybe they chose strings because they sound pretty creepy and unnerving, which is exactly the kind of music you’d want for your villain’s entrance.

Actually, no. Maybe Scott is right, and this is the way we are supposed to be looking at it. Let me try that too:

Maybe Wonder Woman’s theme actually demonstrates that she secretly is an electric guitar player, and when no one can see her, she does some sick solos! Or even better: the use of horns in Batman’s scene is symbolizing how THE MOVIE FUCKING BLOWS!

Yeah, that sounds right.

·       Zack Snyder does the best work of his career in this film. Snyder has a new style here combing the styles of masters specifically Kubrick, Kurosawa, and Hitchcock. As previously noted, the film uses several Kubrick transitions, most notably the “MANKIND IS INTRODUCED TO THE SUPERMAN” and the time jumps. The film also uses a more thematic and visual structure, making a viewer see the film several times to truly understand the work. Some audiences may be confused and not know what they are watching, and call the film a mess. Batman V Superman is not a mess but simply a misunderstood great film that will be considered better as time goes on.

It's incredible, how you can turn criticism of a movie’s terrible pacing, editing and convoluted nonsensical plot into “actually, it’s a masterpiece that’s meant to be viewed many times to fully understand”. But sure, maybe it will someday be understood, like other underrated masterpieces, like “Catwoman”, or “Green Lantern”.

·       This film, just like Kubrick’s films, makes you question many things.

Yeah, like: what the fuck were they thinking?

Or, should they just stop making superhero movies?

Or, who the hell wrote this monstrosity?

No, wait, I never asked those during a Kubrick film. What are you talking about?

·       Take for instance all the countless subtle and nuanced visual clues this film has, some I may not even have noticed. One instance is the camera focusing on Batman’s feet (Harish Chengaiah). This indicates that Batman is slipping closer to his ultimate fall, killing Superman.

First off, I’ve seen “Batman v Superman” about 4 times already (2 times theatrical cut, 2 times ultimate cut), which is 4 times too much, but I really don’t remember there being a strong emphasis on Batman’s feet. I mostly remember extreme close-ups of people’s faces, but not feet.

With that said, is that really ALL those feet could symbolize? Does Tarantino also try to show his female characters being close to falling, when he shoots their feet on camera?

Actually, maybe you’re right on this one, Scott. Here, let me try that too:

In “Batman v Superman” there are lots of shots, where we see the two protagonists from their back. Back is, as everyone knows, a place where human butt is located. With this subtle direction, Snyder visually shows us that his heroes are actually assholes.

·       What I found the most intriguing was the horse motif throughout the film. At the Battle of Metropolis and the Senate bombings, a horse is shown running amok. This shows how Batman views Superman as an animal, and later in the film, horses are shown carrying the coffin of Superman. The animals running wild shows how Batman thinks Superman will act connecting to the destruction he supposedly causes. This is also connects to the deranged hunter idea in Batman’s character arc. At the end funeral, the horses are carrying Superman’s grave, where Batman sees Superman as a good person and a hero.

This is actually an intriguing part, cause yeah, there is a sort of horse motif in the movie. But I highly doubt that THIS is what Snyder was trying to say with it. Scott wrote the analysis based on the theatrical cut of the film. Well, in the “Ultimate Cut” there are more shots of horses. And the first thing, that makes this interpretation probably invalid, is that horses appear in several scenes, where Bruce Wayne is nowhere around to see them. So, the horses are probably not there purely symbolical.

How about a different version: horses just look cool. Especially in slow-motion. Maybe that’s why they’re there. If you listen to Snyder’s commentary on “Watchmen”, you’ll find out that this is his explanation for most of his creative decisions- “it’s there, because I thought it would look cool”.

Yeah, that’s a bit shallow, I know. But here’s the thing: horses are pretty much always associated with something nice in our minds. They’re basically human’s best friends (next to dogs), and out of all the animals they’re the ones we value the most. Horses are strong, loyal, brave, and have served us for many centuries in many ways. They are commonly used as a positive symbol, not negative. That’s why in so many fantasy books the good guys are riding horses, while the bad guys ride more alien looking animals, like spiders or dragons.

So, even if Snyder actually used a horse as a symbol, he chose a really bad animal to get his message across. Pretty much any other animal would be better. And in the end, can’t you make the exact opposite argument about the funeral scene? That the presence of horses in that scene could show that Batman still sees Superman as an animal?

The metaphor, if intentional, is so obscure and falls so flat on its face, that it might as well not be there.

·       Zack Snyder in addition to using several strategies from Kubrick expands on a trick from Alfred Hitchcock. The master of suspense talked in an interview about the difference of surprise and suspense. Hitchcock used the idea that the surprise gives ten seconds of audience interest, while suspense can give a lot longer. If two people are sitting at a table and a bomb goes off, it is surprise. If we see the bomb and are given a visual of a timer or clock before the bomb goes off, it is suspense. Snyder combines the two extremely well, creating both great surprise and great suspense.

·       Then, the surprise comes with the bomb and shock the audience has.

It’s amazing, how wrong did Scott interpret the famous quote by Hithcock. To explain this, here’s the original quote by Alfred Hitchcock himself:

“We are now having a very innocent little chat. Let's suppose that there is a bomb underneath this table between us. Nothing happens, and then all of a sudden, "Boom!" There is an explosion. The public is surprised, but prior to this surprise, it has seen an absolutely ordinary scene, of no special consequence. Now, let us take a suspense situation. The bomb is underneath the table and the public knows it, probably because they have seen the anarchist place it there. The public is aware the bomb is going to explode at one o'clock and there is a clock in the decor. The public can see that it is a quarter to one. In these conditions, the same innocuous conversation becomes fascinating because the public is participating in the scene. The audience is longing to warn the characters on the screen: "You shouldn't be talking about such trivial matters. There is a bomb beneath you and it is about to explode!"”

What Hitchcock meant by this example, is that the suspense comes from the element of danger, that the audiences are fully aware of, but the characters in the movie are not. The suspense comes from this possibility, that the characters can still see the danger coming and maybe survive, but probably won’t.

I should note, that this is not the only right way to create suspense in your scene, of course. Moviemaking is not hard science, and there is no one right way.

The bad part is, Hitchcock was actually using a situation similar to “Batman v Superman” as an example of suspense done badly. The bomb just goes off, all we get, as an audience, is a few seconds of shock and then any tension is gone. Yes, we see Luthor earlier in the movie plan something, but we have no idea what, or how, or when will happen. The court scene is tensionless, because nothing in the movie telegraphed that there is a bomb and it’s going to go off. It just explodes, and there were are.

It’s even worse here, cause the only character we’re supposed to care about in this scene is Superman. And the explosion does nothing to him.

The scene is pointless, really. Yes, Superman is upset after it, but he was upset before, so not much changed there. He goes away for some time, but returns about 10 minutes later, so narratively his departure does nothing for him and other characters. The court scene with all its subplots doesn’t lead anywhere beyond that. This scene, this court case has been built up through the entire film, as the one big story-arc uniting all the smaller ones, and it leads to absolutely nothing. This is terrible screenwriting.

It may just be the most confusing scene in the entire movie for me. Why is it there? What purpose does it serve? The only answer I can find is: Goyer and Terrio didn’t want to write an actual court scene. Cause then they would have to have characters actually discuss the politics and responsibility. Those themes, the movie constantly hinted at, but never actually expanded upon. We could actually do something with them here. Have Superman actually be held accountable for his actions by people. To have a dialogue between him and people. But nope, that’s too much work. Blow it up, guys.

·       The capital bombing sequence has great suspense with the audience knowing that Luthor has something planned with the reintroduced jar of piss.

This has got to be the greatest sentence anyone has ever written in the history of film criticism. Great suspense reinforced with a jar of piss.

Goddamit, this analysis is a gift that just keeps on giving!

·       Snyder is also perhaps the best director at visual movement since Akira Kurosawa. In the all the fight sequences, there is plenty of visual movement within the frame making the viewer stay active watching the film and not get bored and disinterested.

This is how you spot someone, who has clearly never seen a Kurosawa film, ladies and gentlemen! There is nothing remotely similar between the styles of these two directors. Snyder is famous for his notorious slow-motion shots, close-ups of objects and use of music.

Yes, Kurosawa is famous for the use of movement in his films. But if you look at his movies, the characters are usually the only thing that’s moving. Kurosawa mostly films movement from a fixed perspective, not moving camera much, and the movement is mostly created by actors and the weather.

Furthermore, Kurosawa was great at positioning his characters in a scene in inventive ways. In this shot, from “Heaven to Hell”, he tries to make emotion bigger by having a room full of people react to one person speaking.

In another shot, from “Bad sleep well”, he puts characters in a dynamic triangular composition, where we can clearly see the power dynamics between them.

You will never see anything like it in “Batman v Superman”. Most of this movie is people talking, and every time they do, they just stand in front of each other, filmed in the most boring “shot-reverse shot” fashion. Without any clever use of space around them, usually with background heavily blurred. One of the most common, boring, and least creative ways to film a conversation in any movie ever.

Also, if Snyder is so afraid that his viewers will get bored or disinterested, why does he have so many of those static dialogue scenes?

If his audience gets bored so easily if they don’t see the movement, isn’t it exactly the kind of audience, to whom you don’t give a movie with some deep symbolism about horses and stuff?

·       Snyder fixes one of his mistakes in Man of Steel, where a fight scene takes police in the completely visually uninteresting middle of the day. The nighttime not only gives better visuals, but also makes things clearer.

Ehm, no. it doesn’t make things clearer. The night makes everything look darker, and it’s actually harder to see anything, especially in a superhero flick with some much action. And especially in a movie, where one of your main character is dressed completely in black.

·       The characters have a strong sense of weight that Snyder is able to create a great fight scene with actually strategy and intellect behind it, not just a mindless slug fest. There are many other countless great things Snyder does here in the best work of his career.

I think that this is actually the worst work in Snyder’s career. I used to like Snyder and his style, especially in Watchmen. But it looks like Snyder is completely helpless, when he doesn’t have a comic book to directly recreate each shot from.

One of his biggest failures, as a visual director, in this movie is Gotham and Metropolis. There is no visual difference between the two. When I was watching the movie, I had no idea when does a scene take place in Gotham, or when it takes place in Metropolis. To be honest, I still don’t.

Gotham has always been famous for how visually interesting it is in all adaptations of Batman comics. It always had a unique architecture and lighting. It felt fantastical. You’d never confuse it with any other city, especially Metropolis, which is supposed to reflect optimism of Superman, but doesn’t.

In “Batman v Superman” neither Gotham, nor Metropolis feel like a real place with its unique atmosphere. Even the worst Batman movie, “Batman and Robin”, had some kind of unique atmosphere in Gotham.

·       Screenwriter Chris Terrio did a great job. He mentioned in an interview with the Wall Street Journal, “This has been the most rigorous intellectual exercise I’ve had in my writing life. For “Batman v Superman,” I wanted to really dig into everything from ideas about American power to the structure of revenge tragedies to the huge canon of DC Comics to Amazon mythology.” This shows how much Terrio put in to make the film the great quality that it is, as well as establishes the ideas and themes of the film that were explored.

This is a conclusion, and I think this part demonstrates something really revealing about this whole analysis. Here, Chris Terrio tells us what themes and ideas he was trying to explore. Note that this incredibly huge analysis by Scott didn’t touch upon most of the themes mentioned by Terrio. Never has Scott discussed revenge tragedies, or Amazon mythology, or American power etc. Yes, fan interpretations are fine and all. But if you’re trying to make a serious analysis of a movie, to show everyone that it’s actually a masterpiece and this is the vision of its creators, doesn’t it kinda ruin your whole argument, when one of the creators actually says completely different things about it? Proving, that you probably don’t have a solid grasp on the movie’s themes and ideas?

But Terrio is right about one thing- “Batman v Superman” is indeed a movie about everything. And in this attempt to touch upon so many themes in ideas, it never truly focuses or fully develops any of them. It has a lot of monologues about what it means to be a hero, and responsibility. It has an entire scene, where the movie just stops and we see news montage, where people say stuff like “Is Superman- God?”. Instead of presenting such ideas subtly through narrative and imagery, the characters just discuss things that in reality, should be discussed by the audience, not the movie itself. The movie just goes: hey, audience, did you ever think that Superman may be God? What would you do in that case?

But it doesn’t actually say anything meaningful about our relationship with God. Luthor constantly namedrops things from Nietzsche and Theodessy. “If god is all powerful, then he cannot be all good. And if he’s all good, then he cannot be all powerful” Lex says. It’s an old philosophical question “if God is so powerful, why does he allow bad things to happen?”. Does the movie answer the raised question in any way? Nope. Cause mentioning a philosophical theme already counts as being smart and subtle for guys like Scott over here.

This is really showing: in an attempt to make a movie about everything, they ended up making a movie about nothing. And really, it’s no surprise that Scott and many other DC fans protect their movies so passionately. They would never handle an actual smart movie, like “Solaris” by Tarkovsky, or anything by David Lynch. But “Batman v Superman” is good enough for them. It’s a stupid movie that tries it’s best to look and sound like it’s actually saying something, when it really doesn’t. That’s what these guys need. An illusion of a smart movie, rather than a real thing. “Dawn of Justice” is so badly written, name-drops so many themes and ideas, so vague with its character motivations and their reasoning, that it works for them. They can fill in the blanks, they can come up with bullshit explanation for any plothole and badly written character, and say “see, it’s actually brilliant, because it leaves space for interpretation”.

Funny, that Scott never mentioned one of the most common criticisms of the movie: the atrocious editing in theatrical cut. Probably, because, Scott knows so little about editing, that he couldn’t even pretend that he does, like he did with all other aspects of filmmaking in this movie. If he did some actual research on the subject, you know, learned a bit about one of filmmaking’s most essential parts, he’d know that many scenes are clearly missing important pieces and transitions. Most of which appeared in Ultimate Cut. Including a really important little scene, that explains that Superman couldn’t possibly see the bomb in that court scene! You know, one of the most important plotpoints for his character, which is missing from theatrical cut.

Scott constantly compares Snyder to Hitchcock, Kurosawa and Kubrick. Problem is, these directors were famous for having their creative vision of a movie, and fighting for it till the very end, no matter what. If Snyder really was such kind of visionary, then he would know that this scene is incredibly important for his character, and would fight to keep it in theatrical cut.

But Snyder is no such visionary. And “Batman v Superman” is no masterpiece of cinema. It’s a soulless, cynical movie created solely to make money. As proved by the fact, that creative vision is sacrificed for time efficiency, when needed.

If you still like “Batman v Superman”, it’s fine. It doesn’t say anything about you. I don’t want to take away your enjoyment of a movie from you.

But please, if you do enjoy it, don’t go out of your way to pick a fight with anyone out there, who disagrees with you. Actually learn what Batman is (supposedly) learning in the movie. That your opponents are people too, with thoughts and feelings, and probably have perfectly valid reasons for their beliefs and opinions, just as you do.

Farewell.