Review of "Batman v Superman: A Beautiful Lie" by Steve Baxi: Part One

"Batman v Superman: A Beautiful Lie" is A Horrible Lie : Part One

Steve Baxi calls Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice a "Mess".  In reality, the movie is brilliant and beautifully complex, enough so for people like Steve who don't understand the meat of it to call it a mess.

I'm not going to address any commentary about Man of Steel as my concerns are with Batman v Superman.  I like Steve's acknowledgement and assessment of some elements of this movie which shows an understanding of a lot of it and even echoes many of the sentiments found in Sam Otten's Justice League Universe Podcast which I have contributed to regarding the deconstruction of Batman and Superman.  However I completely disagree with Steve's assessment that none of what the movie sets out to do works.

Firstly Steve says that it's never explained why Lex knows Batman's and Superman's identities.  This is false.  We are shown how Lex knows Diana Prince, Barry Allen, Arthur Curry, and Vic Stone.  It is the audience's responsiblity to infer that Lex has learned Batman's and Superman's identities through the same methods of surveillance, something which is even easier to do since both Batman and Superman are already in the public eye.

Secondly Steve asks how Lex knows what Kryptonite is.  But Lex flat out says to Senator Finch how he knows about Kryptonite.  "One of my 'rebuild Metropolis' crews found it.  A little souvenir from the Kryptonian engine.......the fragment is of a radioactive zeno mineral.  We suspected it might have biointeractions, so we took the sample to  ....where they keep the remains of the Kyrptonian decedent, and when we exposed General Zod to the mineral, this happened...."

Steve questions how Lex's agent in the Indian Ocean is able to know what Kryptonite looks like at a glance.  But even the audience is able to identify Kryptonite at a glance.  It has a green glow Steve!  Then Steve assumes Lex's agent breaks open the big rock brought by the kids knowing there is Kryptonite inside.  If he knew there was Kryptonite inside, why would he need to break it open?  The whole point of breaking it open is to see if there's any Kryptonite inside.  Steve is also ignoring the possibility that that Kryptonite found in Metropolis could have been housed in a similar rocky exterior when it was discovered.  This whole complaint about the Kryptonite is just Steve grasping at straws trying to find flaws with the movie and failing miserably.  So far Steve is essentially just complaining that the movie doesn't tell you what every character is thinking which is something you'd be hard pressed to find in any movie

Steve's third complaint is regarding the movie not making it clear that Bruce has looked into Kryptonite.  Really?  Isn't the fact that Bruce says it's the first sample big enough to mean anything not clear enough?  Steve seems to have an inability to infer the obvious.  He then corrects himself via on screen text but goes on to note the movie doesn't provide the audience with a time card to tell us stating the line is a blink-and-you-miss-it line.  Well I guess Steve didn't blink because he acknowledges the line so it couldn't have been that easy to miss.  And I have to take the comment about not offering the audience a time card as a joke, otherwise I'll cry at the idiocy of such a statement.  The passage of a designated amount of time is irrelevant to any one who isn't trying to nitpick and look for flaws in a perfectly fine movie.  There is no need to know 3 months have passed to follow the story and know what's going on.  It is the assumptions made by people like Steve about how much time has passed that will make things not make sense, so stop making an ass of yourself and stop ass-uming.

Steve finishes addressing this complaint of the movie by saying that Bruce looking for Kryptonite is the only way him waiting this long to act and following Lex's breadcrumbs works.  Um....really Steve?  I think you're missing the point.  That's the WHOLE reason Bruce has waited this long.  The world's greatest detective searched for Superman's weakness, and when he found what it was he went in search for it.  It doesn't take a detective to figure out that had he not needed the Kryptonite he would have acted sooner.

Steve goes on to complain about the White Portuguese plot yet again correcting himself with on screen text and yet again giving the same excuses about time cards and blinking.  Its gotten to the point where he's just completely lost credibility.  If you're going to try  to dismantle a movie, you should know the movie you're trying to dismantle first.  Furthermore his excuse is a piss poor one and assumes the general audience is paying as little attention to the movie as him.  It stands to reason that the cargo ship would not be in play until there was something to be transported on it.  So how is that a gimme when its common sense?

Steve's fourth complaint is questioning how Lex knows where Lois will be and how he knows the African general is looking for bodyguards.  Steve assumes Lex was following Lois, which isn't unheard of considering the lengths he has gone to track the metas.  But Steve is forgetting that Lex has affiliations and contacts within the CIA who are using Lois to infiltrate the terrorist's hideout and have been tracking him.

Also, the fact that this is a newsworthy story indicates this terrorist is not just some nobody and that the world's eyes are on him.  And since Steve is using the Extended Cut of the movie we can also point out that there is a civil war in Africa which this general is a part of, something that would be covered in media outlets.  Hence of course Lex knows about the general and his need for bodyguards.  Combine this with Lex's CIA contacts and it's clear as glass how Lex knows about the interview and is able to insert his men.

The fact that Steve is asking these questions furthers the point that Steve has it out for this film and is just looking for problems.  Why would you even question it instead of accepting it as part of the story?  And the "simplest" answer he can think of requires far more assumptions and leaps than the actual answer.  Ironically he says "even if there is an explanation, the movie never makes it explicit".  I'd say the movie makes it quite explicit and this statement is just a defense for potentially being wrong.

Steve's fifth complaint is his opinion that involving Senator Finch to acquire an import license makes no sense given he intends for Batman to steal the Kryptonite and it would be more ideal to keep it on the down low.  The thing is Lex believes in humanity.  He is trying to enlist the aid of the US Government in protecting the world from beings like Superman.  This is the whole point of working with the Senators to get an import license.  He wants the US Government onboard with his plan.  While he does intead for Batman to steal the Kryptonite, are we to believe Lex didn't save some for himself knowing that Batman would steal it leaving it out in the open for him to do so?  Likewise it serves to reason that he would keep some to pursue his planned partnership with the government in creating that "silver bullet" to use against Kryptonians.

Sixth, Steve questions why Lex has both Clark and Bruce attend the fundraiser.  He assumes that Lex has setup data transfers from Anatoli's phone to lure Batman there.  But there is no way for Lex to know that Batman would copy Anatoli's phone, Steve is just assuming that's the case.  Therefore his argument about how Lex would know Batman wouldn't just break in hold no water.  In order to lure Bruce to the fundraiser Lex instead sends him an invitation.  Note that these sort of events are planned and invitations sent far in advance.  Lex must have had plans to have Bruce attend before Bruce even copied Anatoli's phone.  Further, since Clark is press, his invitation would have come just before the event, perhaps just a couple of days before.

As to why have the two at the fundraiser, there's an old adage that says "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer." Another adage that comes to mind is, “Know thy enemy.”  Lex has never met Clark/Superman or Bruce/Batman in person.  This was an opportunity to do just that in the perfect setting.

Steve assumes Lex wants Clark and Bruce to meet claiming there was a low chance of this happening.  Well if this were Lex's agenda he could easily just introduce them so I don't understand Steve's point of questioning what the chances were they'd run into each other.  Steve also claims it’s risky to have Bruce there in the first place, but he is ignoring the fact that Mercy is keeping dibs on Bruce as the movie shows her watching him.  Lex has the home field advantage in this situation, but Lex WANTS Bruce to think HE has the upper hand.  Therefore by making his home openly available to Bruce he is letting Bruce think that he is getting one over on Lex when he steals the data and not giving him any possible reason to suspect that the data has been planted or corrupted (which it in fact is giving Bruce only the information that Lex wants him to acquire) had he made the data available to Batman at some other nonsensical offsite location.    Note that we see Lex have backup plans throughout the movie as a point of fact.  Therefore, should Bruce have failed at acquiring the data or not attended the event, surely Lex would have had a backup plan for such a possibility.

Steve’s seventh point is loaded with complaints.  He doesn’t know how Lex knows Bruce has gone crazy and intends to kill Superman.  Well firstly Lex knows Bruce Wayne is Batman.  Secondly he knows Wayne Enterprises was destroyed during the Black Zero Events.  Thirdly, he knows that Robin is dead.  Fourth, there is media evidence which shows Batman has changed over time including the branding which he plays on.  Fifth, Bruce openly speaks out against Superman as seen during his conversation with Clark.  Sixth, his continued surveillance of Batman by the same means he discovered his identity…..do I really need to continue?

Steve can’t comprehend why Lex needs to manipulate Clark, involve Martha, and include Doomsday in his plans.  Superman has made it clear to those paying attention that he fights for truth, justice, and the American way – a true boy scout.  It is not in Superman’s nature to kill, something he made abundantly clear to himself after needing to kill Zod.  Lex knows this.  While threatening Martha’s life was certainly a reason to have Superman confront Batman, in order to make Superman actually fight Batman and risk hurting him he needed to give Superman a reason to fight and go against his morals.  And even after being pushed into hating Batman and being opposed to his methods Superman still attempted to reason with Bruce first which shows us that had Lex not given Clark purpose he would have avoided exchanging blows with Batman altogether likely continuing to try to reason with him.  It’s the results of Lex’s manipulation, the brandings and the words of the dead inmate’s girlfriend which made Superman resort to violence.  Lex needed to push Superman far enough where killing Batman was a viability, and we can see that is the case when Superman speaks to Lois before flying off to face him.

As for Doomsday, while Lex gave Batman a “fighting chance” he wasn’t about to put all his eggs in one basket.  As we see throughout the movie, Lex has backup plans.  And while Doomsday was certainly a backup plan to kill Superman, that wasn’t his entire purpose.  While I can cite comic book source material to easily justify Lex’s motivation, instead I will do so strictly within the context of the movie.  Lex is faced with a government who is opposed to killing Superman, a sentient being, who he sees as a threat to humanity (ie the likes of Senator Finch).  Lex is aware of others like Superman in the world and envisions a future in which they rise, terrorize, and dominate over humanity (ie Lex’s metahuman thesis and “red capes” scare tactic).  In order to prepare the world for this eventuality and shift its opinion while simultaneously coming out the hero, Lex attempts to unleash a “Kryptonian threat” the US Government would have no objections to killing and the likes of which only Lex knows how to stop.  The government would have no choice but to employ the “silver bullet” Lex proposes to the Senators at the beginning of the film "to use against the Kryptonians" (which he was then dismissed by being told the only Kryptonian flying around here is Superman.)  And by working with the government to eliminiate this new Kryptonian threat he would become humanity's savior.

As Steve points out, the Batman v Superman bout is not televised or publicly broadcast in any way.  Therefore we can assume that when Lex says "They need to see the fraud you are.  With their eyes.  The blood on your hands.  And tonight they will" there is implication that Doomsday is what he is referring to, because if Batman were to successfully kill Superman as Lex hopes he does, then there would be no blood on his hands.  Therefore we can infer that Lex's plan is to once again frame Superman and the Kryptonians for unleashing Doomsday.

I don’t need to imagine Steve asking me how Lex would get away with this given the SWAT team arrives because I’ve already been asked that.  Had Superman killed Batman, then Doomsday would have killed Superman and neither one of them would be able to give testimony that Lex was behind it.  Had Batman killed Superman, Batman wouldn’t have known Lex was behind Doomsday.  While Lex was banking on one of them dying, as we learn in the Extended Cut Lex is able to pull off an insanity plea, something he can easily come back from.

Steve then proposes Lex should have just made a kryptonite bullet and had Superman shot.  While I’m sure Lex explored that option, let’s just use what we see in the movie.  Firstly it’s important to understand based on Lex’s behavior and speech as he speaks to Superman that he takes the existence of Superman as a personal affront.  He also indicates to the senators that Superman is a threat to humanity.  It’s a matter of “global security”.  There is also the view that Superman is a god.  And Lex also points out that there was no Superman to come save him from his father’s abominations as a child and he still turned out smart and successful.  Although there is resentment, there is still the fact that he didnt need Superman and neither does the world in his eyes.  So it makes sense for Lex to want to give Man a “fighting chance” against this god as Lex says about Batman.  "God versus Man".

Additionally we hear Bruce specifically state that the Kryptonite found in the Indian Ocean is the first sample big enough to mean anything.  This statement is loaded with implication.  Steve is working with a preconceived notion of how Kryptonite works, likely based on previous comics, tv shows, and movies.  However in this new universe we don’t exactly know how Kryptonite works.  Bruce’s statement implies that small quantities of Kryptonite won’t cause the same damage as larger quantities.  We also see Superman’s body able to circulate the Kryptonite gas out of his system, even with only minimal sunlight reflected off the moon in a gloomy night, and even then it wasn’t killing him.  We also see Superman recover fairly quickly when the Kryptonite is tossed aside.  On top of everything we see the inordinate amount of effort required to carve out a spear, and one which is still chunky and not incredibly smooth, which clues us in on how difficult it is to shape kryptonite with any sort of precision.  Therefore creating a bullet shaped piece of kryptonite that would correctly fire from a gun would be theoretically impossible.  This leads me to my next point that such a small piece of Kryptonite would not necessarily kill Superman or even completely penetrate his skin given it wouldn’t have much time to interact with his cells at such a high speed and the fact that we are led to believe that small quantities don’t have the same effect.  This would also preclude encasing kryptonite inside a bullet which would be further shielded from Superman by the metal of the bullet.  And attempting to fashion an arrow would give Superman too much of an opportunity to hear it coming and avoid it and which also wouldn’t necessarily kill him.

Steve goes on to ask why Lex doesn’t send Keefe’s checks back over time to nurse his hate.  Not only would that give Bruce the opportunity to discover that Keefe is not the one sending back the checks, but it would also not serve as a catalyst after the Capitol tragedy.  The fact that Bruce is clueless about the checks makes him feel like he failed Keefe.

Steve continues to question the antagonizing of Clark in his eight complaint.  As I explained earlier, Lex needed to motivate Clark and make Bruce out to be a murderer.  Lex has already seen Superman kill Zod for killing people.  So he is playing on that sense of righteousness in Superman that would bring him to kill someone.  Steve insists that antagonizing both Bruce and Clark is pointless because Bruce is already set on killing Superman.  This logic absolutely boggles my mind.  If a bully picks on you, you can easily just walk away.  Lex needs Superman to want to fight Batman to give Batman a chance to kill him.  And while Martha is motivation enough for Superman to confront Bruce, its not motivation enough to fight him.  Had Lex not antagonized Clark he wouldn't have given up on reasoning with him so quickly and the fight likely would not have lasted.  The fact that Superman fought back allowed the fight to escalate to the point that it did.

The ninth issue Steve addresses is regarding the witness in the African incident.  He asks why the witness is necessary given the destruction of Metropolis which he feels should be political reason enough for the US Government to blame Superman.  Steve doesn't seem to get the fact that Superman is viewed as a hero.  The government would not have authorized a giant statue of Superman if they didn't view him in this light.  Furthermore they would have considered Lex's "silver bullet" if they felt he was an enemy.  The destruction of Metropolis is an internal affair.  The US Government is aware the Superman was defending the country against Zod as all military parties involved can attest to that.  But the reason Superman's actions in Africa create such a problem is that Superman is viewed as an American agent by foreign countries given the US is harboring him.  Therefore any intereference in foreign territories by Superman is viewed as an American act.  The witness testifies that Superman was not only a participant in the African tragedy, but that people died because of him.  The Senate's hand is forced into acting to avoid political backlash.  By stating that "people" would be more cool with Superman taking action against terrorists in other countries Steve shows a lack of understanding of the events in the movie and of international politics in general.

The purpose of Wallace Keefe's presence in the Senate is threefold.  By having a civilian target Superman with a bomb it further emphasize the dangers that Superman poses by simply existing in our world with the collateral damage caused.  In addition, that collateral damage eliminate all the people who possess various knowledge of elements of his plots.  Finally, making Keefe out to be the bomber victimizes him further and, in tandem with the returned checks with imagery of Capitol Hill, shows a festering in Keefe and conpsiring over time which sets Bruce off.

Finally, in Steve's tenth issue focused on Lex, he 'wittily' shows a clip of "How Batman v Superman Should Have Ended" which can be seen on Youtube.  Surely he uses this clip to emphasize his argument that Superman could have used his super powers to quickly find Martha rather than bother with Batman.  Steve completely fails to understand the situation.  Not only is he making assumptions about the level of Superman's powers in this universe by using preconceived notions that he is overpowered, an idea perpetuated by people who are anti-Superman, by assuming he can easily distinguish a person's voice amid a flood of voices,  but he completely fails to properly interpret the situation.   Not only is Martha gagged and unable to call out for him, but Lex admits he has no idea where Martha has been taken to from her home in Kansas.  This means that Martha could literally be anywhere in the world, and Superman can't possibly search the entire planet for her in less than an hour.  It just so happens that she is being held in Gotham.  On the other hand, Lois screams at the top of her lungs.  Even if Superman didn't know it was Lois' scream, he still would hear someone falling off a building.  Steve continues to insist that Batman is already set to go after Clark and there doesn't need to be any more coaching from Lex.  But as I've already stated, Batman can want to fight Superman all he wants, but if Superman doesn't show up, how can he fight him?  Let's also take a moment to realize that Bruce still doesn't know that Superman is Clark Kent.

As for Doomsday once again, I've already explained the purpose of Lex unleashing Doomsday.

All of Steve's "problems" are simply Steve failing to understand the movie.  Is it the movie's fault just because Steven didn't understand it?  Well the fact that plenty of other people have been able to understand the movie gives me reason to say that yes, it is Steve's fault, whether because he chose not to attempt to understand it instead resorting to trying to pick the movie apart, or because he was legitimately confounded by the concepts set forth in the movie, it's clear that his issues are not thought out.  I've addressed all his concerns with Lex's plans by using only what was shown to us in the movie.  If it wasn't clear enough for Steve, then perhaps he should consider yet another viewing.  Some of the best forms of art require repeated experiences to get closer to appreciating and understanding them.  But if he doesn't care enough then I have to wonder why he is spending so much time trying to dismantle the movie.

Is Lex's plan convoluted?  Well its a series of elaborte plots orchestrated by a high level genius with many moving parts.  I would expect such a plan to be convoluted or people would have figured out what Lex was up to.  As for Lex's motivations, I'm not sure what the big question mark is.  Lex stated his motivations several times in the movie, notably to Senator Finch right at the beginning of the movie.  He doesn't trust Superman and doesn't want the world to depend on him.   "So that the day does not come, madam, when your children are raising daisies at a reviewing stand."  He doesn't believe that Superman should be held to a higher authority, nor does he believe Superman is all good.  "The problem of evil in the world.  The problem of absolute virtue.  The problem of [Superman] above all.....God takes sides."




Steve Baxi's "Batman v Superman: A Beautiful Lie":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7Z2AKOrQg4