Examining the characters and storytelling in the film By M.Schinke

Once more unto the breach, dear Opinionnerds.

If you need a quick refresher, or you just missed it, go back and read Part 1 and Part 2.

This has been a long, hard slog for me guys. It’s been emotionally and intellectually exhausting not because of the breadth of my lazy ass work, but because having to engage with this movie is an experience I find painful to both body and soul. But I have some last observations to make, and they are some doozies. So without further fanfare, let’s finally get this thing done starting with….

A Tale Of A Boy And His Mother (Box)

Steppenwolf is the big bad of this film. His goal is to conquer the Earth. His motivation is; because he’s EEEEEEVIL! I wish I was being glib about that but, honestly, that is all the movie gives us on the who’s and why’s of Steppenwolf and his army of Parademons. He goes around destroying planets and then moving on to the next ones. He doesn’t enslave the population (that we’re told), he doesn’t mine resources (that we’re told), he isn’t building an empire – at least not that we know of. His agenda is mired in half formed pieces of storytelling that sound intriguing but don’t bear dramatic fruit. For instance; when fighting the Amazons, before taking off with their Mother Box, he tells Queen Hippolyta that when they, “join his legion” they will all, “love me”. It’s a sufficiently creepy set of statements but, given the fact that both of the lines are delivered in pointed close ups, the film language tells me these statements were important to note. But, as with other characters in this film we don’t get any further development on this idea. Twice Steppenwolf states that he was in, “exile” but exiled from where or from what is, again, not elaborated on. This exile could very well have been self imposed, a penance extracted for his failure to conquer the Earth and for losing the Mother Boxes. This does bring up a point of interest.

As we’ve said, and as we all should know, words have meanings. When a writer chooses a word they’re doing so to communicate a specific idea to their audience. In this case the word, “exile” was used purposely to communicate Steppenwolf’s, “state of existence”, if you will, in the period between his failed invasion of Earth and his return. Exile does not mean to be lost or to simply be away, as defined by the Merriam-Webster dicitonary,

a : the state or a period of forced absence from one’s country or home b : the state or a period of voluntary absence from one’s country or home

In both iterations the context is built around an, “absence from one’s homeland”. So Steppenwolf is specifically telling us, the audience, that he has spent, “millenia” in absence from his home. What home is this? He also says that, in his exile, he was, “searching” but the movie never says for what. For the boxes? They should have been on Earth where he left them, so what was he searching for? We don’t know because the movie never tells us.

As far as what pushes this character, what drives him, what he wants out of the whole shebang – we get very little to define him. At one point he states that he will take his, “place among the new gods”. You might know what a New God is if you are familiar with comics but, as far as the movie goes, we don’t know that it’s a specific reference. It could mean just that he will consider himself a god, but it’s not a recurring idea that the character presents that we can pinpoint as a motivation. And again, it won’t be mentioned after this scene. There are intimations towards some kind of goal beyond just doing something-something to the Earth but it never fruits into a core drive for the character. He is the definition of a baddie who’s bad for the sake of being bad simply because we do not know what he wants or why he wants it outside of conquering worlds for the sake of conquering worlds. This is not an unworkable condition for a character as far as storytelling goes, but there is a limit to what certain audiences will choose to accept. Younger audiences will tend to skew more positive on these types of characterizations as they are generally not overly concerned with the deeper emotional or psychological drives of fictional characters. If the villain is sufficiently frightening in appearance and delivery of their actions, kids under a certain age will be content just knowing they are bad. However, while I’m not a fan of them, I acknowledge that kids are smarter than we give them credit for. Even if having a deeper understanding of what drives a character isn’t necessary for them to engage with it, they will still absorb any information you give them. As audiences get older they tend to become less forgiving of absences of information. It’s not for lack of imagination though; our older minds crave stimulation on a different level. Kids and adults just process information differently. So putting that information in context it begs the question; what audience was this character meant for?

Steppenwolf is not a complex character. In my opinion it is a character built of half formed ideas that exists only as a threat to bring the team together. As a matter of course for many of the half measures the movie engages in, we don’t really see a lot of strong examples of why Steppenwolf is to be so feared. In many films or other stories that are meant to be acceptable to a younger audience you usually can’t show the villain being as horrible in the specific way the story paints them, at least not to civilians or to the heroes for fear of frightening the little nippers. What you often find is, in order to sell how terrible they are, the storyteller will have them be awful to their own soldiers or followers since, as the henchmen, we are less prone to to care about their fate and the villain can go nuts on them; as long as the henchmen or soldiers are non-human. We don’t get that from this movie. Most of the carnage Steppenwolf inflicts is not focused on, quickly cut away from or occurs off screen, so we don’t really see just how terrible and cruel he is. Again, if this movie is being geared towards children overall, you can get away with this but older audience members may not be so accepting. Sometimes you can just say something is a thing; simply deliver the information. Sometimes you have to sell it. In the case of villains like Steppenwolf, I believe the audience needs to understand why the threat is so great that they need so desperately to be stopped. Again this is my opinion but, I believe in general that if you don’t generate a visceral reaction in the audience it becomes more difficult to get them to line up against the villain, especially in cases where you are trying to present them as a character that might actually have a good, or valid, point or reason for what they’re doing. In this case, and in accordance with the movies desire to present something easier for audiences to digest than the previous films, I fear the production did not succeed in presenting a villain of substantial threat; especially once Superman is added to the mix.

The real mystery with Steppenwolf is his odd relationship with the Mother Boxes or rather the boxes he calls, “Mother”. It isn’t just something he refers to them as – it’s much deeper. He talks with them. Not to them; but with them. He holds a dialog with the boxes he calls Mother. He refers to them as her, as if they were an actual, sentient being. His first words in the film are, “Mother, at last you call me home”. He later says in conversation with, “Mother” that he sees why she waited to, “summon” him. This all suggests that the box has some level of intelligence and that it isn’t just a powerful thing to be fought over. According to the films storytelling Steppenwolf waited until the unity of Earth had dissolved before returning to again attempt to conquer it. But according to Steppenwolf himself it was the Mother Box that contacted him after the, “death of the Kryptonian plunged this timid world into such terror”. This suggests that the box is both somehow aware of the world around it and was able to reach out to Steppenwolf at any time, if it was necessary. In my observation, a line in the, “History Lesson” that says Steppenwolf was driven mad by his defeat at the hands of the Earth races may have been meant to support this idea that he talks to the Mother Box like it’s a person simply because he is crazy. Unfortunately, this does not resolve an important issue – how did Steppenwolf know when to invade? Batman referred to the Parademon he catches early in the film as a scout, in this context defined as:

a soldier or other person sent out ahead of a main force so as to gather information about the enemy’s position, strength, or movements.

It is entirely possible that it was this scout, or a group of scouts, that informed Steppenwolf of the condition of the world and told him it was ready for invasion after the death of Superman. Of course this would beg the question as to who sent the scouts in the first place, because if it was Steppenwolf that sent the scouts out, he would have to be quite mad to then turn around and say that it was the Mother Box that called him back. And then, of course, there is the ever present question that I referred to in my section on Cyborg – Why does the Mother Box, “light up like Christmas” after Superman dies?

Quickly, and in reference to Cyborg, there are a couple of moments that are called out very specifically yet not expanded upon that involve Cyborg, Steppenwolf and the Mother Box. When Cyborg comes flying in to defend his father from Steppenwolf in the tunnels under Gotham, Steppenwolf immediately recognizes that he has been built from the Mother Box, calling him a, “creature of chaos”. After Cyborg denies with, “Not how I see it” we get a close up of Steppenwolf, film language for something important, telling him to, “give it time”. Once Victor begins to tap into the Mother Box during the final battle, and begins to seem – troubled, Steppenwolf grabs him and asks, “Now, do you see it?” again delivered with a nice, big close up. These were not throw away lines delivered on the cusp of an edit or as a character is walking away. The film language used says these were meant to be focused on and absorbed by the audience. Their delivery alone sounds menacing enough, but they don’t connect to anything and it’s just more non-sequiter storytelling. Lastly, in the scene where Superman is facing the League in heroes park there is some incongruous storytelling. The movie presents the scene as Superman, not knowing who he is, reacting to the fact that Cyborg loses control of his, “armors defense systems” and shoots at him. However, if you observe the scene, while Superman is, “scanning” the league, the POV shot focuses and pushes in on Cyborg specifically. When we cut back to our shot of Clark he turns and begins to step towards Victor, looking quite intently at him. It’s only after this that Vic’s, “armor” goes off. I could be reading too much into it, you’d have to watch the scene and judge for yourself.

There is one last idea that, upon deeper examination, is confusing to me and that’s the idea of how fear relates to the Parademons. There is a bit of a conflicting approach, though admittedly they are only separated by a gossamer membrane. According to Batman early in the film, the Parademons are attracted to fear. As he says, “they can smell it”, and it’s used at the end of the film as a way to dispose of Steppenwolf. However there is a separate idea that might just be a matter of semantics, but still stands out to me. At one point, while attempting to secure the location of the Mother Box from the STAR Labs employees, Steppenwolf tells them the, “stench of your fear is making my soldiers hungry. Shall I feed them?” This wouldn’t be anything more than a curiosity if not for one other scene, and it goes back to that, “conversation” between Steppenwolf and the Mother Box. At one point Steppenwolf says to, “Mother”, “I know, Mother. you have waited too long for the unity. I know, but you will feed.” This follows his remark that the Mother Box summoned him after Superman’s death plunged the world into, “such terror”. These references to hunger and feeding being connected to either terror or fear suggest a different storytelling usage than the set up/ pay off gag that became the ultimate expression of the idea. I have my thoughts on what that might have been, but again this is not the place for that speculation.

The Dark Knight Returns?

As far as this individual film goes there is very little to say about the character of Bruce Wayne/ Batman. Within the text of the film there aren’t any major character inconsistencies or logic problems in how the character acts, reacts or processes. Yes, there are some tonal inconsistencies even within scenes. Yes, there is a slight facial hair issue early on; but that’s not a character logic problem so much as it is a chronological continuity error. If anything, the worst that I can say about the character is that it’s not interesting. It has no edge, no sense of intensity or focus. It doesn’t, “feel” like my idea of Batman, but that’s not an analytical point as much as it is a personal observation. Like the other characters in the film I don’t get the feeling that he believes what he is embarking on is particularly important or vital. When I see him I keep hearing the refrain from that REM song, “It’s the end of the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine”. The issues I find with the character are not intra-textual, but inter-textual between films.

It’s difficult to say for sure but, given the context clues found in the film, there doesn’t seem to have been a great passage of time between BvS and JL. The damage to the monument from Superman’s battle with DoomsDay is still there, and people are still laying items at its foot, behind a police barricade, in remembrance of him. I think the movie wants to play with the passage of time but, practically, I wouldn’t peg it at more than a month or two at most, but likely much less than that. BvS takes place during the Mexican Dia de los Muertos, or Day of the Dead, festival which occurs on October 31st. In JL the characters are still wearing heavier clothing and jackets, indicating cold weather (remember, visual storytelling). If you’re taking the film as a continuation from the previous, there is a major disconnect between the characters demeanor in BvS and JL. By the end of BvS you are meant to leave with the impression that Bruce is taking himself back into the light, but a change of focus, or the act of recovering a semblance of one’s faith, does not that quickly change how one addresses the world. It’s a process, not a switch you flip in your brain. In JL the character has been significantly, “toned down” in comparison to its previous. Batman’s experiences in the former film have led to a major emotional and psychological but, if JL takes place only a month or so after BvS, I find it difficult to resolve the major change in the characters attitude. I believe this is part of the attempt to address claims that the character as portrayed in BvS was not, “likeable”; entirely misunderstanding or ignoring that making the character likeable was the opposite of the point. As a consequence of this, nothing that happened with Batman in BvS is addressed in this film, as doing so would force the audience to recall the character and, thus, defeat the intended purpose. This is not to be equated with the way people feel Superman’s actions in Man of Steel went unaddressed in BvS; a movie whose plot is wholly predicated by the events of the film that preceded it. The world putting Superman on trial, or him holding himself responsible, for what occurs in MoS is ridiculous. In this case, the events of BvS in relation to Batman are just ignored.

There is an attempt to address the issue of Bruce’s involvement in Superman’s death, as Diana mentions that Bruce feels guilty about what occurred, and that attempting to bring him back is a way of dealing with that guilt. However this is a one off statement that finds little support in any textual or sub-textual way in the body of the film. Bruce feeling guilty for Superman’s death isn’t touched upon anywhere else in the movie, unlike how his fear of the Superman is alluded to in BvS. The idea of bringing Superman back isn’t even hinted at before the scene where it’s proposed. And, I know; people will say, “well the idea that Batman wanted to kill Superman in BvS isn’t brought up until it’s brought up” as a way to counter this criticism. And this is a true statement; the issue in BvS is not addressed directly until the scene where Alfred confronts Bruce and he admits it, which I feel the scene in JL was meant to reflect. However, there is a difference in the context that underpins the two scenes that makes one more of an effective reveal than the other. In BvS there is a red herring and a whole set of activities set up surrounding Batman on the hunt for a dirty bomb that then becomes the reveal of his true intentions; what would have been a shock if marketing and advertising hadn’t ruined it. In JL there is no such material underpinning Bruce’s suggestion that they bring Superman back. He learns about the Mother Boxes earlier in the movie from Diana’s history lesson but there is nothing to suggest that he is forming a plan to use one to resurrect Superman; he wouldn’t even know it was a possibility until he learns about one being used on Victor; again, slightly incongruous as he had Luthor’s file footage in BvS. All of this is contingent on Bruce having information on Kryptonian biology that the movie doesn’t show him in possession of. It might be a matter of picking and choosing what information from BvS is acceptable to integrate into this film, or it might just be a matter of assuming that the audience either wouldn’t notice or wouldn’t care. Batman has long been regarded as a character that always knows more than anyone else in the room just because he does; so it’s likely that most people in the audience never stopped to consider this piece of storytelling. Is it important? Kinda yes, and kinda no. It’s not important in terms of plot- not having this bit of storytelling doesn’t get in the way of the of the plot functioning. Still, for something this important, it’d be nice to have some kind of anything to show that this whole thought process wasn’t just a magical epiphany. Again, there might be those who would call out something similar in BvS as an example of my hypocrisy; Lex Luthor and his knowledge of Superman’s identity. Again though, there is storytelling that supports that revelation that, sadly, JL lacks.

This scene between Bruce and Diana, where she accuses him of allowing his guilt to guide his actions, also introduces what I believe is another inconsistency – how does Diana know about what happened between Bruce and Clark that night? Diana doesn’t arrive on scene until about a third of the way through the fight with DoomsDay, so there is no way she could know what went down before she fell from the sky and saved Bruce’s life. From previous storytelling in the movie it sounds as if Bruce and Diana haven’t had much, if any, contact in the time period between BvS and Mos, and I find it unlikely that Bruce would spill his guts on the issue the first chance he got, and we’re not given any information to inform us of as much. So how exactly Diana knows enough about what went down to assume Bruce feels guilty about anything is not revealed by my observations, nor is how she could have any idea how Clark would feel upon seeing Bruce if he were to be awakened, as Diana suggests. It isn’t as if she knew Superman, they barely spoke two words to each other in BvS. Similarly, how is it that Bruce knows who Steve Trevor is in order to use that relationship to, “clap back” at Diana for bringing up his guilt? Diana doesn’t mention him at the end of BvS, and she is vague about knowing, “somebody who would have loved to pilot” the Flying Fox when she finds Bruce in the hanger. Again, we could assume that they exchanged this information at some point between films but the storytelling in this movie suggests that is unlikely. If they had shared this information, Diana wouldn’t need to be dodgy about this person she once, “knew”. Could Bruce have gotten this information when he found the glass print photo that Luthor stole? Sure, he could have; but we can’t know that because the movie doesn’t give us any information to indicate it. Without any information, without any data, we’re not making educated assumptions; we’re guessing – and guessing aint storytelling.

To add to this mix, because it is contextually relevant, we also have Barry and Victor quickly agreeing with Bruce about the possibility of reviving Superman with the Mother Box. At minimum, Bruce could claim to have some amount of information on Kryptonian biology having had access to Luthors files – at least if we’re still allowing for BvS’s storytelling. But Barry and Vic have had no such access to that information, so how can they even begin to guess that what Bruce has in mind will work? Barry is not a xenobiologist and has no idea what or how the Mother Box works. Victor says he ran, “the numbers” on the plan but how can that be possible when the biggest variable, Kryptonian biology, is unknown to him – unless the data comes from the Mother Box, which we can’t know because the movie doesn’t tell us. (*Another incongruity found while examining this scene is that Victor says he’s, “not looking forward to re-integrating with the Mother Box”, but this isn’t part of the plan as we see it carried out, so why is this line included?) These are all examples of the same issue – character choices and actions predicated on information the characters could not have had access too. I would be perfectly at peace chalking this up to an aggressive level of nit-picking on my part if it weren’t for the fact that a major plot point, the resurrection of Superman, and all that follows, hinges on this scene. It’s hand-wavey storytelling; everything sounds perfectly logical until you stop to question it.

*Someone please check my work and tell me if I’m wrong.*

Other small incongruities arise that make continuity problematic. How could Luthor have extensive, handwritten notes on the Mother Boxes when at best he might only have seem images of them before he was picked up by the police? If Luthor was being sent to Arkham Asylum at the end of BvS, how is he out and about in JL’s post-credit scene? Why are Bruce and Alfred still doing facial recognition and identity searches on the League recruits despite possessing extensive data we know that Luthor had, especially if the existence of that data is the support for his knowledge of Superman and Batman’s identities in BvS? Just as with Cyborg, there seems to be an effort to disconnect this film from the one that preceded it and create the impression that Justice League is the sequel to a movie that does not exist. But, even within itself, this is all incomplete storytelling as the movie does not cover or reiterate the events that led to the current status quo in this world. Why was Bruce looking into the boxes? What were the circumstances surrounding the events of Superman’s death? As a counterpoint some might point out that BvS does not reveal the circumstances of Robin’s death, alluded to by the image of the damaged uniform Bruce keeps on display in the cave. However, the circumstances of Robin’s death are not relevant to the plot in BvS, whereas the circumstances surrounding Superman’s death are – both to explain the danger present in the attempt to resurrect him and to contextualize the guilt motivation Bruce is meant to have.

The Death And Return Of Superman

I have to give credit where it’s due in regards to the Superman vs The League scene. Upon reflection it’s foundational storytelling is better conceived than I first assessed. Superman returns without his memory, or maybe his soul, and acts out of instinct after what he presumes is an attack from Cyborg. Diana snags him with the lasso of truth and plants the seed that will lead to his recovery. Lois would pick up the baton from there and then, once they arrive at the Kent farm, he would recover more and more of himself.

At least, I’m sure that was the plan.

What we get is a solid start that is undercut by Superman’s inconsistent mood. Diana says, “He doesn’t know who he is” and her attemtps at awakening him with the lasso seem to bear some fruit. Hoever his approach to Batman seems to indicate the second approach – that he has lost his soul, snapping out of his haze long enough to engage in some, “tough talk” that calls back not to the fight in BvS, but to the earlier remark that Batman made after Superman wrecked the Batmobile, using it as a juvenile clap back instead of the semi-racist statement it was in that film; making a point of his non-human origins. The movie doesn’t seem to know how to approach Superman at this point – has he lost his memory, or has he come back bad? There also seems to be some attempt to rewrite the events surrounding Superman’s death into some unknown form that would somehow cause Batman to feel guilty and Superman himself to hold Batman partly responsible. Like so much else, there are storytelling issues that arise when you attempt to resolve the two films in this context. Take for example Superman’s brief dialog with Batman;

“You won’t let me live. You won’t let me die.”

This dialog is incongruous as a description of the events of BvS. Bruce and Clark had two confrontations of which only one was the fight. That confrontation seemed pretty well resolved before the films finale. This new dialog suggests that Batman had been hunting Superman throughout BvS or was consistently exerting some kind of antagonistic pressure against him. There is no mention of the fact that Batman relented when he could have struck the killing blow, no mention of Luthors involvement or that he saved Clark’s mother – there is no mention of any of this, yet Clark’s memory seems pretty much intact. So while this moment does pay off Diana’s warning to Bruce from earlier, there is no storytelling to support why and no real indicator of what the trouble with Superman is. And if we don’t know that, we don’t know how they go about fixing it. Luckily, that won’t really be a problem, because the movie skips right over any of that.

An area that I would be remiss in overlooking is that this entire plot Bruce has concocted to return Superman to life relies on the presumption that Lois Lane, the, “big guns” needed to get Clark back in his right mind, would even agree to be a part of things – or that she could even help. After unceremoniously shuffling her out of the film early on, probably addressing the worst criticisms of the earlier films that she had too much to do, both the movies and Batman’s plot call her in as a device to get Superman back in line. We are not privy to her emotional process concerning the possibility of his return, her decision making process in agreeing to be a part of the plan or anything that happens between when she and Clark land at the former Kent farm, and when Clark is out in the field feeling Super again. These aren’t plot issues; there is nothing contradictory about this storytelling. However this is only because there is no storytelling to contradict. There is an exchange of dialog that is largely irrelevant to anything – Lois telling him she wasn’t strong or the, “dedicated reporter” because she allowed herself to feel grief is some of the worst writing in a mostly badly written movie. She then proceeds to send him off with neither of them really dealing with what happened. It seems to me the idea is to purposely avoid the profound nature of what has happened, to sweep it under rug and say to a segment of the audience, “Don’t worry about any of that stuff. The important thing is Superman is back and we promise he’ll be what you wan’t him to be no matter how drama or storytelling suffer for it”. After two films where she has her own motivations and her own internal process to follow, Lois isn’t allowed to be a character in this movie. This film has succeeded in fulfilling all the wrongheaded negative criticism the past films have gotten, and it sickens me that no one in the critical sphere seemed to care about this enough to mention it.

The next time we see Superman he quite literally appears, in full form, from nowhere to finally give this aggrieved segment of the audience a line that includes the words, “truth and justice”, no matter that they are not appropriate in the context of the scene, and then proceeds to punch Steppenwolf right out of frame. And then the movie proceeds to engage in what I find to be the most infuriating way to deal with the conundrum known as the, “Superman Problem”; the dramatic challenge created when you have a character that is so powerful they can solve virtually any problem you put before them:

He flies off.

In the midst of a, “we have to stop the end of the world” scenario, Superman flies off to assist in the rescue of the people surrounding the nuclear plant where the finale takes place. The movie gives us an unspecified amount of that that Cyborg needs to be covered until he finally cracks the Mother Boxes, so this gives an opening for Superman o perform this feat of heroic daring do; such as it is. Dramatically, these people have no function in the film other than to exist. None of them, either individually or as a group, have a role to play in furthering the plot or the story. Their purpose for being included in the movie is to give Superman (and to a lesser extent Flash, who’s power can also severely hinder drama) a victim to save so the good guys look, “heroic” and to remove them from the fight with Steppenwolf so there is actually a fight to have. What makes this even more frustrating is that we don’t see Superman perform any of the heroic actions promised by this sudden departure, things that people say they desperately wanted to see him do. Instead, we get to see a tiny Superman like figure impossibly carrying a five story apartment building away in his hands. The storytelling here is lacking as we are meant to believe that there is this major threat all around but the movie is rather non-specific as to what kind of danger the people are actually in. The reason I believe it’s important to show that there is a real, pervasive threat is, at minimum, it makes the heroes have to make choices about how to allocate resources, and that affects the drama. For instance, you have Superman who can deal with Steppenwolf all on his own but is also the best one to deal with protecting the civilians from hordes of Parademons – so where do you put him? How does the character deal with making that choice, as both issues are vitally important. Instead, what we get is a moment I believe was designed to please a certain segment of the audience where the character makes a choice that, according to what the movie is presenting us with, is questionable in its necessity and ultimately does not contribute to the plot or to any story, though it does serve the specific approach to the character at the expense of the previous aspects.

Dramatically the movie doesn’t seem to know how to balance it’s elements where Superman is involved. Without him the team can barely manage to hold Steppenwolf at bay. With him, the team seems hardly necessary at all. But within all this is the basic issue that the movie doesn’t know what to do with Superman as a character. Recall that Bruce states the necessity of Superman’s return is predicated on the fact that it is his heart, his humanity, and not his power that is needed to bring the team together. This was always a bit of a dodge as there doesn’t really seem to be any issues with the team not being able to work together up to that point as they have only been out once and they didn’t exactly get in each other’s way. The point being, the movie is telling us that there is something more than just power that Superman brings to the equation and it will be important because it’s something the other characters don’t possess or, in the case of Diana, apparently refuse to embrace. Storytelling wise the only attempt made to capitalize on the idea is, like I said in my first Superman section, to have the characters react positively to his presence; as if that alone is enough. He doesn’t interact with Arthur and Diana at all and has very limited interactions with everyone else. The only function the character fulfills, in my evaluation, is to be a deus ex machina, providing only what it is that Bruce said wasn’t the most important ingredient; his power. Literally, the only thing Superman contributes to the finale in specific, and the film in general, IS his power. It is a surface layer portrayal that says the right things to appeal to a specific group of fans but has no depth to it and doesn’t contribute anything to any story there might have been.

I would hesitate to even call Superman a plot device because bringing the character back doesn’t actually move the plot forward. Ultimately the resurrection scenes only benefit in terms of forwarding the plot is that it leads to the loss of the last Mother Box – and that is actually more important to the forward momentum of the film that bringing Superman back from the dead. Hope, optimism, positivity, joy – all the the attributes people will swear up and down are so important to the character, and the thing that they seem to believe that this portrayal finally gets right, are not elements that the film ever tells us are needed to deal with the challenge in front of the characters, nor are they anywhere on display given his very limited screen time. I could see if they needed to somehow counter the Parademons hunger for fear and it turned out that the intrinsic values of Superman’s humanity were able to do that as he goes on to somehow inspire hope in those around him, then at the very least these intangible aspects of his character would serve some purpose. But this doesn’t happen. When you do the math, what the character actually brings to the film it’s little more than a big set up/pay off gag. As a final, telling statement about how this film regards Superman, the first impression we are given about how the world feels towards his death is to see newspapers with a headline announcing it lining the bottom of a pigeon coop. Perhaps it was meant to be a statement as to how quickly important events fade from the minds of the public, but in light of how central the impact of Superman’s death on the world is to the film its out of place as a joke, especially considering that his death is the reason why the plot of the movie is happening at all. In my opinion, it’s an insult to Superman fans everywhere.

What Was That All About?

Let’s remember the way we evaluate things around here:

Narrative is what guides the piece overall; a metaphor, an idea or a specific point of view.

Story is the emotional journey of the character(s) – what they experiencing internally while they are going through the plot.

Plot is the events that occur that underpin the story – it’s the things that happen to the characters.

Up to this point all the current DC films have had something to communicate on a larger scale – some metaphor or idea they pass along to the audience. There are a lot of different takes on these ideas but here is my list:

Man of Steel was about the importance of choice and the tragedy that occurs when that choice is removed.

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice was about the importance of having faith, and the damage that occurs when we lose it.

Suicide Squad said that no one is totally bad, and every person can choose to do good.

Wonder Woman told us that people are capable of either good or evil, and that love has the power to conquer darkness – I think.

So, the question I’m posing is – do I believe Justice League has anything to say?

No. No, I do not.

As we’ve covered in other pieces, having no story is not a death knell for any movie, especially one like this where the presentation itself can be the substance of it. The style, the action, the sheer visceral experience of watching the film can be what it is, “about”. Unfortunately, I don’t think this film exists as a pure presentation piece. The movie isn’t over the top or kinetically engaging enough to be a cartoonish action film. It isn’t presented in a manner that seems intent on stimulating the senses at all times, nor is the approach to it’s world stylized enough to be amusing or interesting – for all intents and purposes these characters exist in a world very much like ours. The idea of Batman using purposely fantastical gadgets is completely against the approach to the character that was established in BvS, with the only instance of anything even close coming early in the film with his wrist computer that, useful as it is, never appears again.

The challenge the characters in Justice League face is stopping Steppenwolf and, in the end, they do. The League defeats Steppenwolf because Superman is more powerful than anyone and his inclusion in the battle means his team wins. Observe the facts; before Superman arrives the team was losing the fight, and after Superman arrives the team succeeds even with him taking himself out of the fight for a few minutes. The only difference between the before and after states is Superman’s presence – the team does not change it’s approach. Of note, in this finale battle we have more of that phenomena where the characters seem to exist mostly separate from one another, thus they never actually engage as a team which defeats the purpose of the entire movie. The process of defeating the enemy in the film doesn’t involve anything more than showing up, punching Steppenwolf around, doing a bit with the Mother Boxes and then punching Steppenwolf some more. The team has no plan for actually stopping Steppenwolf himself, an enemy that is still a grave threat even without the Mother Boxes. It’s presented as a given that stopping his plan with the Mother Boxes means stopping Steppenwolf and his army, with no further consideration for how you then go about defeating the ultra-powerful alien that has been kicking your asses. Instead of dealing with this issue, the movie gives the team, and the audience, an easy out by having Steppenwolf’s Parademons turn on him and then, mysteriously, having a transport tube open up and suck them away – all of them, by appearances. It’s the same kind of morally absent contrivance that led to the fall of the Chitauri in The Avengers; offering a nice, neat solution to a problem that allows the heroes to maintain a moral, “high ground” – no need to worry about sweeping up the bad guys left over after the boss is gone.

Individually none of the characters has any challenges to face. Some of them are given an emotional set up, but none of them have a challenge to actively engage that is holding back their growth. So separately the characters have no stories, and collectively the ensemble has no story. Defeating the bad guy is of course always going to be the ultimate goal for the film but the drama isn’t in that – we know they’re going to win in the end. But this team doesn’t even have an Avengers level, “can they set aside their differences and be a team” challenge because the movie assumes they will as soon as they start working together, so the drama needs to be within the characters themselves. But as my other sections conclude, the movie doesn’t give us any of that, and it ends up having no drama because there is no conflict. There are no stakes because no one has anything personal to lose if they fail. Sure the world ends and they all die, but what do they miss the opportunity to do or become that they would want to ensure they preserve? Those are what constitutes the stakes for characters in a film like this, and these characters have none of that.

If there is any narrative conceit, any kind of guiding principle or metaphor for this movie, it’s simply beyond my ability to suss out. As far as it being a presentation piece, having a design style or approach that creates a mood or presents an idea – this movie is completely devoid of that as well, in my opinion.

Bring It Back To Me

This piece has not been a fun trip. I’ve broken a fundamental rule I’ve tried very hard to uphold and put a considerable amount of time and energy into analyzing something I think is truly…. Look, I don’t think this is a very good movie. There are big pieces of information that don’t line up either within the movie or as a follow up to the previous film. There is a major action scene early on that has no purpose to either plot, story or character. The characters are defined, but they aren’t given anything to work with emotionally. Big pieces of character information are presented and then completely forgotten.The plot is functional but not interesting. And as far as story goes there is nothing there that I can detect. And worst of all the movie has seven really great actors playing characters that it just can’t find anything interesting to do or say with.

Ok, here’s the thing guys; I’ve done my best to keep the factors of the production out of my analysis but the fact of the matter is that almost all of the incongruities that I’ve noted, to the best of my knowledge, are caused by the massive reshooting the film undertook in the spring of 2017. All accounts you can find say the intent was to fundamentally reshape the narrative and story of the film and trim the plot back to the barest minimum necessary to string together the action scenes that had already been banged into shape. If you didn’t know the history of the production you might not know why things don’t work, but it’s pretty clear people by and large knew something with the film wasn’t right. The pieces don’t add up. It doesn’t flow. There is no drama, no energy, no escalation or feeling of release. There just isn’t any there, there.

I understand the intent. I honestly do. I know what the suits at Warner Brothers were going for; thay wanted that Avengers coin. They looked at the superficial similarities between both groups and said, “Pfff, we can do that.” That led to bringing in Joss Whedon who, along with Geoff Johns, went back to their writing wells and tried to craft a movie that would be specifically targeted to young teenage boys; action as often as possible, lowbrow goofball humor, as much cheesecake as you can get away with, and thrill ride theatrics in place of genuine emotions. It strikes me as a little bit ironic that this film contains examples of virtually everything people claimed was wrong with Zack Snyder’s previous DC films. Action for action’s sake, terrible dialog, vacuous characters, plot holes and contrivances and lazy resolutions. But unlike Man of Steel and Batman v Superman, movies that can be mined not only to smartly dispel those criticisms but for so much more depending on your sensibilities, Justice League doesn’t have the weight or depth of material to patch up it’s shoddy framework. The intent was to take whatever it was that Zack Snyder had constructed, strip it back to the keel, and rebuild it into something simple, straightforward and fun. They had good intentions, but they couldn’t craft the screenplay carefully enough to patch up all the cracks they were creating, and they certainly couldn’t shit-can the whole thing and start from scratch. Without the guiding hand of Zack or the keen eye of DP Fabian Wagner, the production was forced to perform reshoots as fast and dirty as they could get away with, leading to some atrociously obvious green screen inserts and meaningless, anti-storytelling camera work. The post production work was even worse, boosting and saturating the colors in the image to attempt to get that, “cartoon” feel – cooking the footage to the point that detail suffered. Skin tones took on an unnatural redness, grays turned blue, reds sting and stain the camera and whites and highlights completely blow out.

This wrongheaded approach extends to the score as well, with Hans Zimmer protegee Tom Holkenborg being replaced by veteran composer Danny Elfman in an attempt to add some of the zany, offbeat tonality he’s known for to alter the dynamics of the scenes to, again, strip any semblance of the, “self serious” approach from the film. Because if nothing else, it’s impossible to take Elfman’s music as being part of a serious piece – it’s not what he does. But without time to craft the score, and with the movie in such turmoil that he had to compose to storyboards, the resulting score is more than derivative – it is at time downright plagiarized, attempting to graft nostalgic themes onto emotionally disconnected movements to support what he and replacement director Joss Whedon believe the approach to this material should be, as opposed to supporting the movie itself. Most of the time it isn’t even emotionally noticeable but, when it is, it doesn’t work. It over emphasizes every moment and just plain oversells everything.

The choice to try and re-make this movie was wrong on so many levels the mind recoils at any attempt to make an accounting of them. It fails financially – pushing the cost of the film way up while making it so unappealing to any audience that it barely broke even. It fails visually, one of the few areas that a majority of DCEU fans and detractors agreed was a strength. It blows a giant hole in the test screening process, showing that with the right questions you can make those surveys tell any story you want. It fails narratively, emotionally, spiritually – it tanks it on any level of storytelling beyond the conveyance of the basic plot. It’s boring. And worst, as a person who truly admires the characters, it’s insulting because it refuses to treat them like real characters that are used to tell real stories. As far as this film is concerned, the characters are nothing more than the costumes on their backs, the exact opposite of the approach that Zack Snyder was taking with them, with Superman suffering the worst. After two, “swing for the fences” efforts to put some meat to the muscle and some pathos behind the powers, this movie strips all that away in an attempt to oversell a more, “likeable” version of the character that embodies almost every empty Superman trope there is. The whole of this movie is as Superman appears in it; an empty, soulless automaton going through the motions of creating the image of what people devoid of serious regard think a sellable, “superhero, comic book” blockbuster should be. It’s disgusting, it’s repugnant and it’s insulting to me on a fundamental, foundationally emotional and intellectual level.

I have only one word left to share in regards to this movie:

Yes.

Clever endings aren’t my bag.

Laterz

Justice League is available on UHD and standard Blu-ray at Amazon

(Follow *NotThePopularOpinion on Twitter @Only_Grey