Son of Warner Brothers, Bat of Zack Snyder.
I often think back to how excited people felt when the teaser trailer for Zack Snyder’s widely divisive film BvS: Dawn of Justice premiered. Snyder had already faced criticism for his epic start to the DCEU with Man of Steel, a film that showed Superman in a much different sunlight. A version that nobody was really used to seeing. It displayed a vulnerable Clark Kent who wasn’t quite the hero we know yet. One that the masses, or company Warner Bros. hadn’t really seen before. They didn’t appreciate having their favourite Son be deconstructed in such a way that broke protocol for previous iterations by taking a risk. It was a story of Clark learning, and growing into his suit, showing emotions and inner conflicts within himself. Simply trying to just fit in with humans. Despite the rocky start, Man of Steel managed to win people over and the studio green-lit part two of Snyder’s major plan to construct a universe to compete with the other big players in the genre.
Zack approached Batman in the same way he did Superman, by taking what these two characters were well known for and completely deconstructing that perception. He knew these were still two God like characters that had imperfections, and he wanted to expose those imperfections and create a dialogue. He certainly isn’t afraid to upset people by showing a veteran Batman who simply does not care anymore. It’s quite clear that Bruce is the antagonist in the film. When you ask why people disliked the interpretation, the main answer is specifically about Batman’s portrayal. A lot of answers mention the fact that they felt mislead by the marketing, and because Batman isn’t supposed to be a villain.
The studio marketed the film as a huge full on brawl, when it is so much more than that.
Marketing is one of the most important aspects to selling a movie to audiences. The promotion heavily revolved around the only fight the two main characters have. While skipping over important context about the film’s real intention with the story. It’s easy to see where confusion was planted. BvS has a narrative with underlying themes that were completely disregarded due to painting people’s minds with a different film. A lot of people went into the theatre expecting less commentary and more fists. For years the film has been a heavy topic of discussion, and it’s well known that the studio cut 30 minutes of important footage that gives a lot more context and perspective. When the Ultimate Edition was released, a large number of people changed their minds about the movie. Realising that it was never a movie about a boxing match, but a commentary about power among many other themes. It has many parallels with real life; about the world creating darkness in what used to be a good person. It has narrative about someone who doesn’t feel wanted, but still does his best to just be a good person. It shows how power can corrupt, and lack of action can cause resentment. Displaying how darkness can “turn good men cruel.” It took Batman’s no kill rule, and intentionally bent it to show exactly why Bruce SHOULDN’T break his golden rule. There was a reason for it, rather than him just doing it to look flashy. Snyder took one of the biggest debates about Batman, and played a risky hand for Bruce’s arc in the film. By the end of the movie, he realises the morals he once held on such a high pedestal once again, and vows to do better. Superman achieved something he is well known for doing; he inspired hope in someone that seemed too far gone to save. Bruce recognises what his actions, and lack of compassion have done by way of getting Superman killed. His “men are still good” speech holds strong in driving this point home. He reflects on his deeds and how he lost his way for a moment in his 20 year career as the Dark Knight. His visions he has of the Knightmare drove his paranoia about Superman to the edge, and because of that he felt he needed to take dire measures to make sure it never happened. He stopped caring about rules, and focused on doing whatever he could to prevent his visions from becoming a reality. This is foreshadowing for his arc in Zack Snyder’s Justice League when he finds hope again and puts the team together in Superman’s name. The entire film is a character driven arc, more than it is a fight spectacle. With inaccurate marketing, it gave people the wrong idea of what to expect from the movie, and when they left theatres; they were understandably upset that the movie didn’t deliver what the studio falsely promised. They were unaware of what the film was truly about, thus they couldn’t see what Snyder was trying to show us. Zack’s vision with this movie wasn’t just about a fight, it was a commentary about what it could look like if a tired Bruce Wayne finally gave into the darkness he fights every night. About what it could lead to if he were to forget his morals. In many ways it’s more of a Batman film, then it is a Superman film. A second watch, with a different perspective, has most definitely shown a lot of new fans these questions in a different light. Tying all of that darkness that Bruce was involved with in a nice redeeming arc by the end when Superman achieves what seemed like the impossible. Giving a hopeless Batman, hope once again. This is emphasised in the epic four hour spectacle of the original cut of Zack Snyder’s Justice League. Dawn of Justice deserves to be seen in the light it was originally written in. Art is subjective indeed, but you can’t help but feel like a lot of the criticism comes from bias due to poor marketing on the studio’s part. It’s a special movie, with love, and has inspired a lot. Even from the other big name in the superhero genre. It’s no doubt that Zack’s work is widely discussed. Whether it’s being dragged through broken concrete and thrown down a building shaft. Or being held high in regards like a statue built to honour something amazing. BvS: Dawn of Justice is a shining example of misunderstood art. It’s a poster child for how inaccurate marketing can affect the public opinion.
The CineSquad 