Hey, Wisecrack.
Jared here again -- this time to discuss the punching bag of the DC Universe.
No, not that one; This one.
"It's cherry."
Now since everyone’s already beat the film up for its shameless franchise plugging...its
slow plotting...and well...
"Save Martha."
that, we're going to focus on something else - Batman v. Superman’s
ideological failings.
So let’s see if it “bleeds.”
"You will."
Welcome to a Wisecrack Edition on Batman v. Superman - What Went Wrong?
And of course, spoilers ahead.
One of the biggest challenges facing the architects of the DCEU is: how to make Superman a relatable
character?
After all, it’s hard to identify with an indestructible, self-less, god-like figure.
So what was their solution?
Well, a pretty smart one if you ask me.
They kind of did what was done in the Last Temptation of Christ- took a benevolent messiah
figure and emphasized his vulnerabilities, flaws, and most importantly- doubts.
"I'm a man like everybody else."
"Quiet."
Doubts as to whether he can or should carry the burden of divine status; essentially making
him more HUMAN.
We see this push and pull as Superman decides between being a benevolent savior or just
focusing on what matters to him- namely Lois.
The problem is this botches a fundamental part of having a movie about the rivalry between
Batman and Superman- namely, having them embody different ideologies.
This doesn’t really happen.
Enter Batman V Superman’s biggest inspiration: Frank Miller’s graphic novel The Dark Knight Returns.
The film takes a lot of its cues from this work: An older broken Bruce Wayne.
Check.
Superman being hit by a nuclear warhead & then being healed by the sun?
Oh yeah.
Robin’s memorialized costume in Batman’s lair?
Yep.
...Even the central fight between Batman and Superman is more-or-less taken from the graphic
novel -- with Superman trying to reason with Batman, and Batman having none of it.
But beneath the ‘mask’ of both The Dark Knight Returns, and Batman v. Superman lies
an unlikely inspiration; one that solidifies the all-important ideological distinction between
Batman and Superman: Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead.
Well, at least it does in the graphic novel.
Rand’s novel follows Howard Roark, an ‘experimental’ architect, who faces near constant opposition
from the rigid establishment.
And yeah - I know what you’re thinking: ‘What the hell do two superheroes punching
each other have to do with architecture?’
Well not only has Zack Snyder been trying to make “The Fountainhead” movie for years...
But Frank Miller cites Rand as a big influence on his work.
Per Miller, he was
In particular, both Miller and Snyder seem drawn to Rand’s depiction of male heroes.
In The Fountainhead, protagonist Howard Roark is the IDEAL man.
A man, who no matter the obstacles, achieves his goals and never gives up an inch on his
integrity - even if that leads to conflict with others.
This Randian hero is defined by “ethical egoism” – the belief that the best course
of action is always what’s in your best interest.
Only through pursuing your own self-interest, can you ever hope to achieve happiness - a
central tenet of Ayn Rand’s philosophy: Objectivism.
To Rand, a male hero must be a radical individualist, unwilling to bend, smarter than everyone else
and well, not too shabby on the eyes.
Sound familiar to a certain ‘Dark Knight’?
Rand’s ‘Ideal Man’ fits Miller’s Batman to a tee.
He’s a super rich, handsome playboy with a genius intellect who refuses to bend to
anyone’s will but his own.
It’s Batman’s adherence to Randian egoism that enables an ideological conflict between
Batman and Superman- individualism over collectivism.
Batman faces constant obstruction from the US Government who task the ultimate ‘conformist’
to stop him: Superman.
In Miller's work, Superman is the anti-Rand figure – a character whose self-sacrificing
moral righteousness & commitment to ‘good’ marks him a ‘Government Stooge’.
Much of the drama in Miller’s graphic novel stems from these differing ideologies: the
individualism of Batman vs. the conformism of Superman.
Now – whether you agree or not with Rand’s philosophy, there’s no denying that Miller
successfully instilled the spirit of her theories to create a compelling interior conflict between
our two titans.
So, while Frank Miller pulled this off with flying colors, Batman V Superman’s integration
of this philosophy is where it all goes wrong.
First let’s give props to what they got right – Batman.
Affleck’s version is pretty much in line with Miller’s Randian take on the character.
He’s handsome, almost supernaturally athletic...Smarter than everyone else...and catnip for the ladies.
Batman’s also a complete individualist, refusing to bend his will to anyone - even
the judicial process.
"We're criminals, Alfred. We've always been criminals. Nothing's changed.
He even brands criminals so they'll be shanked in prison.
Now, I watched the whole movie being pretty confused as to why Batman wanted to fight
Superman in the first place - but here too I think there’s a nod to Rand.
If Batman is so concerned about this God-like Superman, it’s because any kind of God ruins
the whole ethical egoism thing: how are you supposed to make your own choices, based on
your own rationality, when there’s something objectively greater than you?
Rand was famously an atheist for this reason.
So they get this Randian version of Batman right – but it’s with the depiction of
Superman that things begin to get muddled.
They couldn’t create a purely benevolent, do-gooder Superman cuz that would be boring
and impossible to relate to.
Conversely, they decide not to make him the collectivist stooge that Miller made him,
because, well...the audience is supposed to like him just as much as Batman and we’ve
got Justice League films to make people!
So what do they do?
Previous depictions of Superman have focused on his self-sacrificing goodness.
In Christopher Reeve’s iconic portrayal, Superman doesn’t save people for his own
betterment, but simply because it’s the right thing to do --
"I'm here to fight for truth and justice and the American way."
be it rescuing a cat from a tree, or catching Lois from plummeting to her death.
The Superman of BvS, however, looks like he’s stuck performing the most tiresome 9-5 job imaginable.
Since Gods shouldn’t whine about saving humanity, the film constantly undercuts the
perception of Superman as a purely benevolent Christ-like hero.
Which, later, Batman just straight up tells Superman face-to-face.
"You were never a god, you were never even a man."
Superman’s crisis manifests into two warring identities - the classic Superman ‘The God’
benevolent & Christopher Reeves-like and Superman ‘The Man’ -- which for Snyder
means a Randian Objectivist.
IE: a guy who flies to the middle east to save Lois but leaves all the other innocents
to die.
This internal conflict is pretty bluntly stated by Martha Kent...
For Martha - there’s no difference between choosing to be a Benevolent Messiah or a Self
Involved Objectivist.
Both are equally valid.
The important thing is that it’s Clark’s choice to make - and this rational choice
is what marks a Randian hero.
Later the ghost of Jonathan Kent gives Clark his own advice, revealing the time he selflessly
‘saved’ his farm from a flood; yet unbeknownst to him – the water went upstream, flooding
another nearby farm.
Jonathan Kent here dismantles the notion of self-less heroism.
There’s simply no point to being the ‘classic selfless do-gooder Superman’ because there
will always be another flooded farm you couldn’t stop.
When Clark asks Ghost dad how he could live with himself after dooming the nearby farm,
he responds -
Dream Jonathan is kind of like a ghost of Objectivism past: suggesting that true moral
righteousness comes from bettering yourself, pursuing your own self-interest, and protecting
the ones you love, because they in turn bring you happiness.
Ethical egoism in a nutshell.
So what choice does Superman ultimately make -- Messiah or Randian Hero?
Actually... he doesn’t really make a choice at all.
At first, Superman seems to embrace Jonathan’s objectivism, returning to Metropolis only
to save the people who really matter to him - aka Lois & Martha.
He even echoes Jonathan’s parting words, telling Lois -
So what is his decision?
Both.
As a benevolent savior, he takes responsibility for the well being of the whole planet, but
as an objectivist he also mentions he’s doing it all for Lois.
Five seconds later, Superman sacrifices himself in the most Messianic fashion possible - Christ-like
with his arms spread out.
Heck - there’s even a makeshift cross behind Superman’s corpse.
Superman’s ambiguous philosophy becomes problematic since BvS is framed as an ideological
conflict between Batman & Superman; and yet none actually exists.
The first time Bruce and Clark meet, the film pays lip service to what SHOULD be their differing
beliefs...
Bruce doesn’t like how Metropolis and the world blindly trusts Superman by labeling
him as a savior.
Bruce questions the very possibility of a “superhuman benevolent savior,” because
as he’s seen- even the best can turn bad.
"I Just have a bad history with freaks dressed like clowns."
And Clark thinks Batman is a vigilante, who needs to be put in check.
"Civil liberties are being trampled on in your city. Good people living in fear."
This is a similar ideological conflict as Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns; but BvS,
instead of exploring the dynamic further, immediately upends it.
The world turns against Superman...
"Headline: end of love affair with man in the sky?"
Because, like Batman, he acts on his own accord.
And by using Objectivism to make Superman more relatable, the film ends up shooting
itself in the foot, because now there’s almost no ideological difference between Batman
and Superman.
So in a film that requires a conflict based on differing ideals, that’s based on a source
material showcasing this ideological divide, BvS instead becomes a ‘Randian Hero’ vs.
‘A Maybe Sort-of Randian Hero who can’t decide if he wants to be the divine savior
the world wants him to be..’
So in the end, the film presents no preference of heroics.
Whether one should sacrifice oneself for the greater good, or only keep their own interests
in mind is immaterial, because the solution presented isn’t that one kind of heroics
needs to be put in check while another promoted.
Rather, the message is: MORE HEROS.
- Aquaman, The Flash, Cyborg - and that they all should form their own team --
"Help me find the others like you."
aka The Justice League.
So instead of the film espousing a clear philosophy, supporting Batman or Superman, everything
just becomes muddled.
Quite simply -- it’s a mess.
But it's an amitious mess, and for that, it deserves credit.
And hey -- maybe Justice League will get it right.
Thanks for Wisecrack, Peace.