Fiction is enjoyable, because it is an opportunity to escape from the mundane world of fact and all its needy issues and problems that need to be solved. Zack Snyder's Superman Vs Batman has all the ingredients required to create a block-buster. It is meticulously made, has great actors and a big budget. Watching the movie you can tell that it is in the hands of a genius. Some fault the movie saying it is too grim and it is uncharacteristically somber, but these qualities should not stop a movie from captivating the audience or being interesting to watch, a recent example that demonstrates this is Leonardo and Alejandro's the Revenant. Mid way through BvS I was actually quite disappointed, and at the very end when it was over it felt like I'd just finished watching a long documentary made for the Discovery Channel. Nevertheless, documentaries can be interesting, I just didn't think I'd be watching a Batman and Superman movie depicted as one. Snyder's technique for making his "type" of picture becomes very clear in this movie. What he is actually doing is shooting a movie in third person a technique supposedly used to inject realism, that is, make the audience feel as though he is transforming fantasy or fiction into fact or non-fiction. He uses the same style or technique in The 300 and Watchmen. A documentary will tend to feel as though its shot in "third person" or impersonally because the material rather than the lens is what the screen tries to impress upon the audience. Its an interesting technique that Snyder has probably perfected over years and realized elevates his work above that of other directors. Therefore, hoping for the same success he has experienced in the past he relies heavily upon this style and seems to have finely honed it in Batman Vs Superman (BvS). The Revenant, like BvS is a grim, somber movie but it is shot from three emotional perspectives employed by the camera lens, namely 1st, 2nd and 3rd person. The audience is pulled into Leonardo's personal emotional space (1st person), it is given time to view him from the eyes of other actors who interact with him (2nd person) and the narrative is allowed at times to seem as though impersonal observation (3rd person). Snyder's gist is that he masterfully attempts to keep the lens in 3rd person throughout the movie even when close ups are are applied, the angle of the shot encourages distance. This makes the roles the actors play seem remote from the audience, that is, the audience never really gets intimate with any of the characters on the screen. this style of filming gives the audience the feeling that the actors know they are being watched; which is supposed to be fine, since the idea is to make it seem as though the audience is observing events as they occur as might be observed in a documentary being filmed live. Its a masterful technique, that has delivered block-busters for Snyder before but even this technique will not survive a good story that has a plot that is not effectively delivered. Snyder's style will not work in a movie that has too much content to deliver. This is due to the fact that a great deal of what the lens conveys must feed off the scene rather than the dialogue to maintain a higher level of realism or to seem impersonal. This is like playing back footage from a security camera. The camera predominantly captures people "doing" things rather than playing to the camera or taking selfies. The problem with this technique is that, like footage from a security camera, any action taking place will be great to watch, but scenes with dialogue will seem boring, seem distant or will feel listless. The audience will keep wanting the scenes with dialogue to get by quickly, because they can't really connect with the people talking, i.e., the same way a random security camera feed or recording with sound, picking up what people are saying, will seem uninteresting because there is no personal connection created between the people talking, what they are talking about and the audience observing the footage.
BvS will sell tickets and make money for a short while, not because its a great movie, but because it is a great idea, and everyone will want to see the movie for its novelty but the majority will not want to pay to see it more than once at the cinema, and that really, is the tragedy. Its seems a strange thing to say, but BvS suffers from trying too hard to be perfect. Its too careful, lacks diversity, is out dated and not in touch with a modern audience. In terms of character, having swag and likability BvS is being outclassed by television series like Supergirl, the Flash and Marvel's Agents of Shield. Something that a few years ago would be unthinkable. In a Man of Steel review I pointed this out. BvS is not cool, its not hip, it has zero swag or the swag is too square, there is no intermittent injection of humour, there is no funk. Its simply too square. Its not even interesting square. Its boring "do your homework" square.
BvS will sell tickets and make money for a short while, not because its a great movie, but because it is a great idea, and everyone will want to see the movie for its novelty but the majority will not want to pay to see it more than once at the cinema, and that really, is the tragedy. Its seems a strange thing to say, but BvS suffers from trying too hard to be perfect. Its too careful, lacks diversity, is out dated and not in touch with a modern audience. In terms of character, having swag and likability BvS is being outclassed by television series like Supergirl, the Flash and Marvel's Agents of Shield. Something that a few years ago would be unthinkable. In a Man of Steel review I pointed this out. BvS is not cool, its not hip, it has zero swag or the swag is too square, there is no intermittent injection of humour, there is no funk. Its simply too square. Its not even interesting square. Its boring "do your homework" square.
In the same Man of Steel review I discouraged comparisons between Superman and "God", and trying to draw similarities between Superman as a Jesus Christ "saviour" type of figure. This is due to the fact that if you were ever truly a fan of Superman from childhood growing up you would know and understand he was never considered a deity and therefore never thought of as god-like. For a director like Snyder not to get this, is a red flag. Secondly to even attempt to use scenes or dialogue that attribute qualities of Jesus Christ to Superman shows a complete lack of understanding of the psychology that conditions modern day Christians. This ignorance could easily lead to a director carelessly allowing scenes or dialogue that could consequently put off a significant demographic. Furthermore, to try to say Superman is not a god, when he is capable of superhuman feats will inadvertently create the same dilemma. After viewing the first trailer for BvS this faus pas was obvious and I pointed it out. The ideal approach was not to mention anything to do with deification or Jesus Christ as it could not be done without lowering the quality of the movie by being irreverent and there really was absolutely no need for it. Don't include something, if you don't know how or its unnecessary but has consequences. BvS comes across as though parts of the script that include religious views were written by people who wanted to inject positive views but knowing nothing about the psychology of Christians they couldn't see how what they were doing was inappropriate. In Christianity God is not about being able to fly, saving people from capsules or burning buildings. It is predominantly about self sacrifice, being willing to lay down your life for others even though they don't understand what you are doing, being able to forgive those who have wronged you etc etc and these qualities are made real by how Christ faced his own challenges. Christians are therefore less pedagogic today than they have been in the past. They admire quality rather than quantity, humility rather than power, service rather than sovereignty and Christ epitomizes strength rather than power. There is no comparison, so it is a faut pas to even bother to try to draw similarities between Jesus and Superman, for a director to make this mistake means they really don't know what they are doing where religion is concerned in a movie and don't really understand the psychology within modern day Christianity.
"Fearing the actions of a god-like Super Hero left unchecked, Gotham City's own formidable, forceful vigilante takes on Metropolis' most revered, modern-day savior, while the world wrestles with what sort of hero it really needs. And with Batman and Superman at war with one another, a new threat quickly arises, putting mankind in greater danger than it's ever known before."
Throwing in words such as "god-like" and "saviour" is out of context in that it reveals a flawed understanding in the author. It simply shows you don't understand the very religion you are gleaning ideas from to put in your movie. You are acting from outside the religion looking in rather than the inside looking out.
Understandably, the Superman Franchise is such a valuable asset that it is considered too important to fail. Lets face it, no executive wants to be in charge of a sure thing, the cash cow, a money spinner when it doesn't pan out. No one wants to be the guy in the hero line-up whose turn it was to get candy from a baby and got knocked out. The pressure will be so intense they are likely to find themselves forced not to admit the reception has not met expectations. Therefore, the problem with Superman begins at the executive level. Giving executives at Warner Brothers a project like Superman to manage is too heavy a burden; its simply too much pressure. Its either the movie will be too closely managed or the executives will take a leap of faith and hand every detail of the movie to a renown director who they believe couldn't possibly fail them, potentially exposing the jugular to a great director who doesn't get it. What Warner Brothers needs to do is the unthinkable, that is, distance itself, step away from projects like this and give them room to breathe in hands that are not too close to the Studio and the stress thereby giving room to more modern creativity. BvS suffers from performance anxiety and consequently fails to deliver, its like a premature caused by such high expectation that in the end leaves everyone feeling dazed and confused about how it could suddenly all be over in one release; this trend will keep repeating itself. Lease Superman out to another smaller studio to produce and develop. Don't look for a director that has successfully directed action fantasy blockbusters this time. You need a director more in touch with his youthful side, who is exposed to diversity and is knowledgeable about modern social trends as this is required to understand what the audience would consider interesting adults rather than boring adult stereotypes that BvS portrays. Instead look for a director that has delivered a successful teen or college movie that was clever, diverse, gritty, dark yet funny, hip, in touch with the audience and had a great story, then give them room to work. If this is too much of a stretch reach out to the creative minds behind the Flash, Supergirl and so on as they seem to be more clued in to what would resonate in the market. When Cisco Ramon channels Reverb using that Matrix template he projects a modern youthful cool factor you should be trying to tap into in a movie like BvS. In that scene Cisco displays that fragile balance between the cool nerd and his alter ego super cool hero persona; both being attractive to an audience, precisely the kind of balance that made Chistopher Reeves famous channeling the two sides of Superman. Its something actors can learn to do with the right direction. You actually already have a lot of creative, talented people around you already going in the right direction, they just need to be trusted with bigger projects.
Understandably, the Superman Franchise is such a valuable asset that it is considered too important to fail. Lets face it, no executive wants to be in charge of a sure thing, the cash cow, a money spinner when it doesn't pan out. No one wants to be the guy in the hero line-up whose turn it was to get candy from a baby and got knocked out. The pressure will be so intense they are likely to find themselves forced not to admit the reception has not met expectations. Therefore, the problem with Superman begins at the executive level. Giving executives at Warner Brothers a project like Superman to manage is too heavy a burden; its simply too much pressure. Its either the movie will be too closely managed or the executives will take a leap of faith and hand every detail of the movie to a renown director who they believe couldn't possibly fail them, potentially exposing the jugular to a great director who doesn't get it. What Warner Brothers needs to do is the unthinkable, that is, distance itself, step away from projects like this and give them room to breathe in hands that are not too close to the Studio and the stress thereby giving room to more modern creativity. BvS suffers from performance anxiety and consequently fails to deliver, its like a premature caused by such high expectation that in the end leaves everyone feeling dazed and confused about how it could suddenly all be over in one release; this trend will keep repeating itself. Lease Superman out to another smaller studio to produce and develop. Don't look for a director that has successfully directed action fantasy blockbusters this time. You need a director more in touch with his youthful side, who is exposed to diversity and is knowledgeable about modern social trends as this is required to understand what the audience would consider interesting adults rather than boring adult stereotypes that BvS portrays. Instead look for a director that has delivered a successful teen or college movie that was clever, diverse, gritty, dark yet funny, hip, in touch with the audience and had a great story, then give them room to work. If this is too much of a stretch reach out to the creative minds behind the Flash, Supergirl and so on as they seem to be more clued in to what would resonate in the market. When Cisco Ramon channels Reverb using that Matrix template he projects a modern youthful cool factor you should be trying to tap into in a movie like BvS. In that scene Cisco displays that fragile balance between the cool nerd and his alter ego super cool hero persona; both being attractive to an audience, precisely the kind of balance that made Chistopher Reeves famous channeling the two sides of Superman. Its something actors can learn to do with the right direction. You actually already have a lot of creative, talented people around you already going in the right direction, they just need to be trusted with bigger projects.
Lex
Lex Luther doesn't work in BvS not because he's portrayed as psychopath or sociopath rather because there's nothing modern about him the audience can connect with. Jesse Eisenburg is a very talented actor. Its not that he didn't pull off Lex, its the character of Lex itself that was unrelatable because he drops out of no-where. For Lex to be a successful villain in the eyes of a modern day audience he has to do things and behave in ways that make the audience genuinely like him, then pepper this behaviour with cruelty that makes the audience struggle with whether he is good or bad. A director knows a modern day relatable villain is one seen to do things the audience can relate to in their own lives, even show compassion; he may be crazy but the audience must like him for some reason and yet at some point in the narrative should despise him for obvious reasons; the director has to keep the audience caught in the ever persistent trap of not really knowing whether to despise or like a villain otherwise he or she becomes too one dimensional to be memorable. Its important to note that the very same formula applies to the hero or protagonist with the exception that a tad more weight is placed on the likability scale that endears the hero to the audience. An always smiling goody two shoes hero inevitably becomes one dimensional and as forgettable as the villain on the opposite side of the equation. There is nothing Lex does in BvS scenes that is relatable on which his being a sociopath can be built on - he comes off as rather barmy from the get go, in fact Snyder doesn't tell the audience why this new Lex hates Batman and Superman (or the reason is too innocuous to buy into .i.e. god versus man) even though he rather than Batman vs Superman is the movie's arch rival. Lex as the main villain almost makes the Bat and Supe squabble appear disjointed or disconnected from the flow of the movie due to the fact that Lex's interference is not carefully explained (why does he hate Batman and Superman so much? What did they do to hurt or injure him?) ; consequently this missing space turns his presence into a persistent irritation in the movie rather than an asset. The audience is trying to focus on Batman and Superman brawling but he's like a noisy fly buzzing in the audiences ear that keeps having to be waved away. In addition to this the movie relies completely on brute strength with no intelligence or finesse when it introduces Doomsday as the threat that brings Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman together. More time could have been spent showing how intelligent and resourceful a foe Doomsday was, for example, a mind link between the creature and Lex would have allowed him to fully possess the creature, even feel its pain (intelligence combined with incredible power), rather than the time spent showing how Lex was clever enough to create Doomsday. It would have allowed Doomsday to speak and interact during the battle. The material content in BvS is superb, amazing, but its not well put together. Lex for instance could have had absolutely no interest in the battle between Batman and Superman. He could have started out as just another sane bloke dealing with normal everyday social issues. The audience would be made to think wow, Lex is actually a really nice guy. He would be going about his business until the BvS battle interfered with a key plan or killed someone he cared about and this drew him manically over the edge. Consequently, Superman's battle with Zod would have developed Batman's anger towards Superman, but in his effort to bring Superman down he himself would cause the very same destruction and pain consequently affecting Lex in exactly the same way. Batman went after Superman seeking justice. This would force him to see that as much as he sought justice by going after Superman, it was not justice but vengeance. When Lex reveals the injury Batman has caused him and unleashes the terrifying Doomsday, a threat to mankind worse than anything Batman may have attributed to Superman, Batman realizes that he too is guilty of the very same crime for which he accused Superman. This failing on his part is what prevents him from plunging the Kryptonite spear into Superman's heart at the last minute. Instead he grievously admit his folly allowing them to work together. In that moment Batman's revelation of what true justice means then becomes the story line for why he forms the Justice League with Superman.
Trailers
Trailers are slowly ruining movies especially in this genre. Many of the most important scenes in BvS were already in the trailers and the audience felt like it had already in some ways watched the movie which is very anti-climactic. Yet, at the same time the Studio needs to market a movie and get a feel of how the audience reacts to trailers in order to gauge what kind of response a movie will get. The way around this may be to blend visual formats. For instance when actors are shown in stills or not moving in videos they can be shown as normal trailer footage, but when there is any kind of action graphical tools are used to transform the footage into watercolour or pencil moving image. Either this or switch to the negative of the same footage. Anyone with a decent phone can change normal picture into a water-colour painting. Applying this method to trailers allows the audience to see what Batman's suite for instance will look like for a moment, but when he moves the water-colour allows the audience to get a vague idea of what the action will be like, but it will never see the actual scenes in their complete visual glory until they movie itself is watched. This is kind of how black and white Japanese manga transformed into anime works. The manga is a rough prelude that doesn't trash the actual anime. Studios could use this technique to avoid trailers ruining movies. If the audience gets used to this effect, when it sees a water-colour effect in a movie clip it automatically knows this is a scene the director wants the audience to get the full effect only during the movie itself or that its a trailer, not the actual movie. To see the footage in its full brilliance they will have to wait until they buy a ticket and are actually in the cinema. This will certainly work for this genre of movies. Personally, I think a director should never display the full quality of their work in a trailer for this genre; the content can be the same but the texture of the picture and maybe even the quality of the sound should be altered so that it is never the whole enchilada.
tbc.
No comments:
Post a Comment