In Defense Of: 'Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice' (The "Martha Scene)

Welcome readers! Today I'm introducing a new series I'll be periodically publishing from time to time called "In Defense Of" where I do as the title implies, defend something that's commonly criticized. Today I'm tackling the "Martha" scene from Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice to tie into Justice League's release this weekend, and I'm sure many of you are already appalled that someone could think this moment has any merit whatsoever, but hear me out. I'm not going to be telling you this film is some misunderstood masterpiece, it has many flaws that I'm well aware of. However, I don't think the "Martha" scene has more substance than people give it credit for.  

In Defense Of: 'Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice' (The "Martha Scene)

So for starters, let's dismiss this notion that Batman simply stopped because their moms have the same name. I think there's a lot more to it than that, but people refuse to look past the surface level so alas this meme was born.

Also, Superman doesn't seem to be saying his mother's name as an effort to stop Batman from killing him. I view the scene much differently than most. So over the course of the entire film, Batman is hellbent on killing Superman because he believes that Superman powers are too dangerous based on what he witnessed firsthand in the Battle of Metropolis. This Batman is darker than most and completely unlike the one we're used to seeing in the pages of comics or even onscreen because he straight up murders people with no remorse. 

However, I think that's one of the film's central themes... Alfred acknowledges the shift himself when he says "Everything's changed. Men fall from the sky, the gods hurl thunderbolts, innocents die. That's how it starts, sir. The fever, the race, the feeling of powerlessness that turns good men... cruel." 

Essentially in Batman's pent-up aggression, he's fallen so far into darkness and despair that he can't even accurately judge Superman's true character. In his rage, Batman only sees Superman as a monster who's going to eradicate humanity and Batman is becoming the very thing he feared as he was being manipulated by Lex Luthor to kill a good man. I'll tie this back in a moment...

On the flip-side, Superman is in a moment of vulnerability. The strongest, most powerful man in the universe is essentially on the ground unable to do anything to prevent his death, and what does he do? He doesn't plead for mercy, instead he simply requests that Batman save the life of another. 

This completely throws Batman off-guard. In that very moment, Batman realizes he's been tricked and sees Superman's character shine through. He sees Superman's inner humanity as opposed to the alien he's so afraid of. He realizes that he's become so obsessed with stopping Superman that he never stopped to think if he even should be doing that. This all powerful being is in a moment of weakness and instead of begging for his own life, he asks Batman to save another. Batman's now in a moment of self-reflection and confusion where he realizes what he's become while generally just confounded how he, the world's greatest detective, could have been so wrong. 

When Lois steps in and informs him that Martha is his mother, Bruce then reflects to a time when he was powerless to prevent his own mother's death. Lois then lays down atop Superman and Batman must process why someone would possibly give their life for Superman, only to come to the conclusion that Superman is truly a man of good character.  

Batman then realizes that the right thing to do is to save Martha. He promises Superman he will do this because he knows what it's like to have his mother taken away from him when he could do nothing. The fact both their "mothers" have the same name is pure coincidence that people have kind of turned into a joke. I don't really think Batman stops because their mom's have the same name. It's because he saw Superman's virtues when he least expected them.

Now I realize many of you may still disagree with me, and that's perfectly fine. Film is subjective to every viewer, and the purpose of this post is to communicate my own perspective upon watching this scene. I'm simply making a case for why the moment works for me as well as explaining what I get out of the scene every time I watch it. 

Throwback Thursday Review: 'Superman' (1978)

It's a bird... It's a plane... It's my long awaited Superman review! Sorry, I just HAD to slip that somewhere in my review... Anyways, I'm reviewing the original 1978 Superman this week since Justice League is fast approaching and I thought I'd go back and review some of the earlier classic DC films. I had originally intended to review this last week, but I didn't get around to watching it, so I'm reviewing the film this week instead. It's also looking like this weekend will be a great opportunity for me to catch up on some of my delayed reviews, so don't be surprised to see any of those surface in the near future. These reviews includes Throwback Thursday Reviews over Inception, Stand By Me, The World's End, The Shining, the It miniseries (1990), Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, Risky Business (1983), and a Triple-R over Interstellar. As for my regularly scheduled posts, I plan on doing weekly Star Wars Speculation posts and my next few Throwback Thursday Reviews will be for The Incredible Hulk, Thor: The Dark World, Murder on the Orient Express (1974), and Batman (1989) to tie into the releases of Thor: Ragnarok, Murder on the Orient Express (2017), and Justice League.

'Superman' (1978) Review

Nominated For: Best Film Editing, Best Sound, and Best Original Score.
Won: Special Achievement Award (For Visual Effects).

Superman opens on the faraway planet Krypton as it faces imminent destruction. Kryptonian scientist Jor-El remains unable to convince the Kryptonian elders of a planet-wide evacuation and promises he and his wife will remain on the planet, so he instead sends his infant son to the planet Earth onboard a spaceship to ensure Kal El's survival. Upon arrival, Kal-El is discovered by farmer couple Jonathan and Martha Kent who decide to raise the orphaned child under the name Clark Kent. On Earth, Kal-El must grapple with maintaining the semblance of a normal life as Clark Kent despite exhibiting a set of extraordinary abilities. Once Kal-El matures, he decides he will use these powers to combat evil and fight for truth, justice, and the American way as Superman!

Believe it or not, but prior to yesterday evening, I had never seen Superman in its entirety. I suppose the reason being that I've personally never been too fascinated with the character to begin with (sentiments I have also expressed in my Man Of Steel review)... I watched it with an open mind, expecting copious camp, dated special effects, and simply an entertaining superhero romp. While I feel Superman hasn't aged quite as well as many other classics, I do think Superman has the all makings of a good superhero film.

Directed by Richard Donner, Superman is able to take off into the atmosphere at its greatest moments and fly on autopilot during the drawn-out bits. I realize this film is regarded to be a timeless classic, and perhaps its just my age and delayed first viewing of the film, but Superman just doesn't feel whole to me. It just seemed odd to me that despite how much screen time is dedicated to Kal-El's origin, the character never felt fully fleshed out. I got the gist of things because I'm familiar with his upbringing in the comics and other mediums, but the film never really deconstructs the character in an interesting manner. I'm probably just spoiled by the comic book movie renaissance which we live in today, but I feel there were many missed opportunities to deepen the Man of Steel's legacy.

This is probably most notable in the film's structure. The beginning of the film establishes the idea that the Kents were a surrogate family for Clark, but Jonathan Kent's death didn't really carry any weight for me as a viewer, because I had barely met the guy when he took in Clark as a baby. The film shows you when Kal-El is essentially adopted by the couple, then fast forwards to Clark's adolescence and the man has a heart attack after imparting some wisdom to the lad. I like the idea toyed around with that Clark could do nothing to stop it despite his abilities, but I feel a death that meaningful to the protagonist should always be as equally important to the audience watching. To me, having a few more scenes about Clark growing up with the Kents could have easily made his death more impactful.

Just look at Star Wars or even Spider-Man, where the protagonist's connection to their adoptive parental figures are firmly established in scenes emphasizing their respective dynamics. Superman seemed to just gleam right over that with about one or two shared scenes between the two. The version I watched was the theatrical release, and I'm aware there's a Special Edition that's even longer so perhaps this isn't an issue in that incarnation, but it was something that stood out to me in this version. It's really weird, but watching Superman, has actually made me appreciate Man of Steel's approach to telling Superman's origin even more... I suppose I'll revisit that film and let you know if my opinion has altered at all in the coming weeks preceding Justice League.

Essentially, my biggest grievance with Superman is that the screenplay penned by Mario Puzo, Robert Benton, and David and Leslie Newman seems to only explore the film's ideas on the surface level. I don't need every superhero movie needs to dig too deep beneath the surface, but a reasonably interesting exploration of character is just an expectation I uphold for all film, regardless of genre. I think the reason that I've never latched onto Superman as a character is that he seems invincible, over-powered, and unwaverable. Aside from Kryptonite taking him down a notch, he's rarely in a moment of weakness and you rarely see him struggle with any long-lasting conflict. Clark, on the other-hand, represents Superman's humanity and the human side of him should technically always vulnerable to some sort of crisis of conscience. Yet, Superman never seems to face these moral dilemmas in Superman. He just does.

To me, that dynamic could be so fascinating to explore, but it's just glimpsed over in favor of showing Superman consistently triumph over evil. When Lois "dies," Superman does briefly seem at odds about changing the course of history as the words of his father figures reverberate in his head. However, he just acts. He flies around the Earth quickly enough to turn back time in his one act of selfishness, but there are no consequences for his actions. The stakes feel absent because it's heavily implied that changing the course of history is inherently bad and should be avoided, yet Superman does this and all seems fine and dandy. I still haven't seen Superman II, III, or IV, so maybe I'm blabbering on about nothing and his actions lead to something in those films, but for the time being it bothers me that the idea of altering history is heavily stressed as carrying grave consequences and there are none...

On top of that, the relationship between Superman and Lois itself isn't very convincing. Lois merely seems fascinated by Superman's physical appearance and everything he is capable of doing. In contrast to that, she seems entirely ignorant of Clark. While this can often be the case for superhero romances, this one just seemed to lack the importance emotional connection. It was difficult for me to completely buy into the idea of these characters as a couple because it comes across as a strictly physically attraction with little-to-no depth carrying it.

And let's not forget to mention the hamstrung, convoluted plot by Lex Luthor. I understand this movie is intentionally campy, but his real estate scheme just seems overly complicated and unnecessary. The financial incentive driving his ideas are sound, but the whole thing is ridiculous. Also, I thought it was odd that a billionaire would only have two incompetent stooges running errands on his behalf. Shouldn't he be able to employ literally as many criminals as he'd like to help him carry out his scheme? 

It'll probably be blasphemy to suggest this, but I also found the beginning portion to be really dull at times considering I was already familiar with the origins of the character. The lack of any action sequences or notable character development whatsoever really accentuated this. As an audience member, I rarely felt like I was accompanying Kal-El in his journey to become Superman. Instead, I felt like the casual observer able to see these events since there are portions of Kal-El's origin that are omitted. 

Now I realize all of that may have made it sound like I hated what many hold up as one of the most iconic superhero films, but I felt elaborating on my criticisms would better explain some of my issues with the problematic storytelling. The elements that do work, work exceptionally well. The visual effects, while aged, held up much better than I could have imagined and it's clear how revolutionary these developments were for the time. When Superman's flying, you really believe it. Although, some green screen backgrounds really stood out in contrast to the practical sets (which hefty balance an alien aesthetic with a futuristic facade). John William's exuberant score also amplifies the events, interjecting a sense of wonder and grandiosity as per usual. It's simply always been a delight to listen to his spirited Superman theme as the Man of Steel carries out his acts of heroism.

It's moments like Clark running to a phone booth so he change into his Superman get-up, only to find pay phone in its place that make Superman truly special. The self-awareness and passing nods to things fans of Superman are familiar with that make the film immensely entertaining at times. 

What really holds everything together though is Christopher Reeve's dual-portrayal of Kal-El. Reeve embodies all the exemplary attributes of both Clark Kent and Superman, imbuing dorkish sensibilities to each character. Clark is a little geeky and squeamish, while Superman flies about speaking about truth, justice, and the American way with the upmost confidence. It's really impressive how Reeve was able to authentically deliver on two fronts, considering a mis-step could have easily caused one to come off as a complete caricature. 

All the while, Margot Kidder feels relegated to the damsel-in-distress archetype as Lois Lane, a terrible trend that's only just recently coming undone in the landscape of comic book movies. Kidder plays the role adequately, but the writing behind her character causes Lois to come off as a bit dimwitted. Just look how she's interviewing while failing to watch the road in front of her... There's also the bit where she seems to be inept at spelling... I find it incredibly hard to believe that an accomplished journalist, such as herself, would have difficulty spelling the words "massacre" or "rapist."

The remaining cast members fall in the categories "Take-it" or "Leave it" as they're fairly inconsistent across the board. Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor deftly balances the appropriate amounts of menace and Bond-villain-esque absurdity. His henchman and henchwoman, played by Ned Beatty and Valerie Perrine, don't ever overcome their character's stilted incompetence and primarily play the roles for laughs. Marlon Brando's monotonous monologues as Jor-El compound the sluggish pacing, and it's apparent he was uninterested in the role and just took it for a nice pay-day. 

Superman eventually gets off the ground, but it takes some time. Thankfully once Superman gets flying, the film is a delight thanks to groundbreaking special effects, an uplifting score, and a convincing performance that ties it all together. Superman may not fly quite as high as some of the more recent comic book adaptations, but it still manages to soar up, up, and away as one of the most influential!

Film Assessment: B

Throwback Thursday Review: 'Man Of Steel'

This week's Throwback Thursday Review is over Man Of Steel, the film that launched DC's Extended Universe and will be further propelled with this week's Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. Man Of Steel is an interesting film to review because of the decisively mixed reactions from both critics and the general public and you will soon learn what end of the spectrum I lie on. Just a warning, there will be some spoilers for some major plot points in the film that I feel need to be discussed. Next week I will continue my series of reviews of the Bourne series with the second installment The Bourne Supremacy. In the meantime, I will certainly have a Batman v Superman: Dawn Of Justice review uploaded very soon.

'Man Of Steel' Review

Man Of Steel is probably one of the most divisive films in recent memory, with critics either hailing it as a masterpiece or labelling it to be a sloppy mess, and the audience's just as evenly split. I'll admit I lie more in the middle ground, as there are elements in Man Of Steel I would consider brilliant and there are portions of the film that irked me, and I feel most problems were with the creative team and not the performances or the technical aspects.

For one, the film has this bleak, dreary, grayscale filter applied for a majority of the lengthy 2 hours and 23 minute runtime that honestly looks like it was ran through some filter on Instagram. Now there is technically "color" in the film of course, but most of the sets, environments, and costumes are in a darker gray, black, or blue color palette that makes the film all the more bleak and dreary. That's another point of discussion altogether, the film attempts to emulate Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy and it's not all too surprising since Nolan produced the project.

Now, I don't mind Warner Bros. trying to emulate their previous success with the Dark Knight Trilogy, which also helps to differ their comic book cinematic universe from Marvel's, but I don't think that everything needs to be so dark and gritty. I think a happy medium of both a dark and light tone would probably work better but Warner Bros. certainly know how to execute a darker, gritty film, and Man Of Steel is that exactly.

Man Of Steel is visually a masterpiece. This is large part to director, Zack Snyder, whose talents mostly lie with visual iconography and not the actual story itself. The cinematography feels very natural and when combined with the editing makes for a smooth viewing experience doing justice to the visual iconography Snyder brilliantly imagined. The film's visual effects are a mixed bag in my opinion. The effects for Superman's powers at times can look very fake, but for the most part seem quite authentic and are well realized. When Superman first gets his suit and flies around for a bit, the effects are remarkable and the cinematography adds to the authenticity incorporating some shaky-cam and gorgeous shots both behind and in front of Superman.

However, there is one brief moment where it is apparently clear a green screen is being utilized. In this brief moment, Superman's flight just seems mismatched with the background and there's a lighting issue where Superman looks darker than the surrounding brighter lighting and it annoys me every time I watch the film. I feel the effects for Superman's strength, heat vision, and X-Ray vision are handled exceptionally well and the sound mixing and editing are also well executed throughout. In particular, Superman's super-hearing and the Krypton technology sound effects are two of the best showcases of the excellent sound design.

One odd sound design choice though was that the weapon utilized by the Kryptonians to attempt to harvest the Earth for a new generation of Kryptonians, the World Engine, sounds like a dub-step cannon. Amidst the subject of sounds, I feel that I must comment on Hans Zimmer's fantastic score. Zimmer manages to create this grand, epic score that seems to be a perfect embodiment of the ideals of Superman but expressed in music.

The performances across the board are quite exceptional, and I have to say that both young actors portraying the younger Clark Kent, Dylan Sprayberry and Cooper Timberline, impressed me in their brief screen time. Henry Cavill makes for a very capable lead as Kal-El (Superman), although he's no Christopher Reeves, but he certainly fills all the requirements I think an actor needs to portray Superman. One thing I think he does remarkably well is his facial emoting, where he really sells that he's struggling or frustrated when using his powers and whatnot. Unfortunately, the film doesn't make time to explore the duality and pressures of balancing his normal life as Clark Kent and his super heroics as Superman but that's one element I can't wait to see explored in these future DC films, whether it be Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice or Justice League.

Amy Adams makes for a solid Lois Lane and actually does quite a bit to drive the story, but unfortunately at times becomes too much of the damsel in distress trope because of her willingness to plunge herself into danger. Aside from those little nitpicks, Lois comes across as a strong, developed female character, whose purpose isn't purely to be a love interest.

Russell Crowe and Kevin Costner both make for great father figures to Kal-El/Clark Kent as Jor-El and Jonathan Kent respectively and you can instantly feel their connection to Kal-El due to the incredible chemistry they have with Cavill and the gravitas of both actors. Diane Lane serves as Kal-El's mother figure as Martha Kent and is terrific in that capacity but she is very much a supporting character that's relegated to a few scenes sprinkled throughout. Laurence Fishburne gets to play Perry White, and I think he was terrific in the small capacity used.

Meanwhile for our antagonists, we have Michael Shannon, who makes for a great villain as General Zod. At times he seems a bit over the top and chews the scenery, not that that's necessarily a bad thing though. I liked that he had a genuinely believable motive and like most great villains believed what he was doing was just. Antje Traue is truly awesome as Zod's lieutenant, Faora, who kicks a lot of butt and is honestly everything the character Captain Phasma should have been in Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens. 

In summary, I think that Zack Snyder certainly presents a film that's very much style over substance, as the first half of the film is phenomenal but it finds itself in a sticky situation with it's grand finale that I will discuss in great detail soon. The scenes that I enjoyed watching were primarily in the first half of the film when Superman is actually saving people or the flashbacks where he's adjusting to life on Earth. I really like how the film stays primarily in the present day and jumps back to flashbacks to fill in for some crucial parts of Superman's origin story instead of wasting an hour on a young Kal-El growing up on Earth. The story is quite lacking in some moments towards the end and there are creative decisions made regarding Superman that seem out of character for the Son of Krypton that I personally see as an abundance of issues.

The action sequences are all grand and epic in scale but while they are quite awesome, I have a number of issues with a few in particular. One really small nit-pick is that these fights use the most blatant, obvious product placement although I don't see how Kryptonians destroying a Sears would convince anyone to shop there? The fights between Superman and the Kryptonians feature copious amounts of collateral damage, that just seems way too excessive. I understand that two people with these powers would destroy tons of property but the fight between Superman and Zod almost levels Metropolis.

What annoyed me to no end regarding this was that throughout the fight, Superman rarely makes any attempts to stop Zod from destroying any buildings or save any civilians, but rather actually even pushed Zod into some of these buildings. This was amidst a fight where buildings were collapsing. I feel that this interpretation of Superman was pretty reckless and there was tons of collateral damage as a result. The one time Superman did save people during this fight was when he snaps Zod's neck to prevent him from using heat vision to kill people. So yes, Zod's death was a necessary evil but it seems even more out character for Superman to kill someone, regardless of what they've done or plan to do, but this version of the hero clearly doesn't take much issue with cracking necks. The screenwriters should have avoiding putting the character of Superman, whose supposed to have a higher morality, in a position where he's forced to kill his villain. In fact, it's kinda hard to even call this interpretation a true hero and I think that is the film's biggest problem. 

Now to sum all of this up, if someone came and asked me to give a one-word review of Man Of Steel, I'd have to say that it's "meh." It's not great, but it certainly isn't terrible either, it's honestly just okay and I feel that Warner Bros. shouldn't accept something that's passable if they ever hope to truly compete with Marvel's Cinematic Universe. 

Film Assessment: C+