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

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

Steve claims Superman and Batman are one-dimensional abstractions rather than people.  This statement ignores just about everything this movie represents, an emotional and transformative journey of two very realistically conflicted people. 

It seems Steve once again starts complaining about not being told things rather than focusing on the story the movie is telling.  Next he’ll be complaining the Mona Lisa doesn’t tell us why she’s smiling.  He begins with Batman and argues we have no backstory for the character.  Aside from countless stories having been told about Batman, just about all backstory necessary to understand the story and the motivations of the character can be inferred within the context of the movie.  (Will he complain if Spider-man Homecoming has no origin story given it’s a new Spider-man in the movie?)

Steve complains that the movie never tells us that the burnt building is Wayne Manor.  Well ACTUALLY, if you pay attention Steve, the movie shows a shot of the Wayne family crest indicating this manor belongs to none other than ::gasp:: the Waynes, hence Wayne Manor.  And let’s not forget the fact that Bruce actually says to Alfred while the crest is on screen “You know my father sat me down right here, told me what Wayne Manor was built on.”  And if we’re leaving our assumptions at the door as Steve suggests we do, then how would we even know to look for Wayne Manor?  So Steve’s whole argument that it looks like Batman is hanging around an abandoned building in his spare time is completely nonsensical and is an indication that Steven needs to rewatch the movie.

Steve goes on to address the way Bruce stares at his Batman costume saying “From the way the scene is shot and Affleck’s performance we can draw a few vague ideas…” and proceeds to throw a slew of maybes at us complaining the movie doesn’t flat out tell us why he stares at the costume and it doesn’t happen often enough to form a pattern.  But is Steve forgetting that this is a visual medium?  Are we not supposed to infer things based on cinematography and performance?  Are we not humans that can read body language?  The fact that Steve can accurately decipher what is conveyed in the scene with all his maybes is evidence that the scene adequately captures what it is trying to say.  Add that to context clues from other scenes, specifically the previous scene where Bruce expresses a desire to use the suit, and the movie tells us all we need to know.

Steve then goes on a tirade about inconsistencies about Batman.  Oh geez, where do I begin.  Not only do we not need to know it is Robin’s suit in the Batcave to understand the story, but we also don’t need to know its Robin’s suit to understand that something bad clearly happened, that someone got one over on Batman, and that he is feeling remorseful about it which absolutely plays into his psyche.

Bruce’s psyche is damaged at the death of his parents which leads him to become Batman.  Its 20 years of losing good guys that have made him cynical and the destruction of Metropolis is the breaking point which led him into such a dark place.  There’s nothing inconsistent about it.  Steve lists a number of things he views as inconsistent, but it’s only because he’s completely missed the point of everything in the movie.  Why does Bruce put a tracker on the truck carrying Kryptonite?  So that if he loses the truck he can still follow it with the tracker.  Why doesn’t he just go to the location of where the tracker stops?  It’s certainly not because Batman isn’t thinking clearly which Steve suggests.  Let’s see….it would take longer and waste more time.  The Kryptonite could be removed from the truck at any point such as to transfer it to another vehicle or because it has reached its destination.  Once the Kryptonite reaches its final destination it might be in a place where the tracker would lose signal or is discovered.  He has no idea what type of place the final destination will be, potentially having very tight security therefore requiring additional reconnaissance and a new strategy.  Anyone who actually does some thinking can see the obvious reasons.

This is where Steve claims there is a big inconsistency.  He asks why bat branding is going too far but reckless endangerment isn’t.  But OF COURSE his reckless endangerment is going too far which is the whole reason Superman interferes.  Steve asks why Alfred doesn’t just pull the plug.  But Bruce will continue to be Batman with or without Alfred.  At least if Alfred helps him he can keep an eye on him and he’s less likely to get himself killed.  And to ask if Bruce even knows if people die from the bat brand implies Bruce doesn’t ever see a newspaper or watch the news.  Not only does Alfred try to reason with Bruce to try to get him to see the light, but he does express a distaste for Bruce’s methods who then replies they are criminals and have always been criminals. 

A lot of his myopic rhetoric is just stating what’s not in the movie and none of which needs to be. What Steve calls inconsistent is just more of what’s not included in the movie rather than actual inconsistency.  He complains that we don’t see Bruce’s reactions to the other Justice League members, beings Bruce knowns little to nothing about except for strange footage that warrants further investigation.  It has nothing to do with his agenda to kill Superman.  These beings did not destroy Metropolis and kill his friends and co-workers.  Nor have they posed any threat to humanity.  Once his mission to kill Superman is finished he has plenty of time to pursue these other metas and determine if they are actually threats.  The movie is woven with content establishing and exploring Bruce’s psyche.  It doesn’t need to show even more via reactions to the metas.

Steve claims Superman is equally confused and a worse character than Batman.  He gets framed for the burned bodies in Africa and Steve suggests he should have looked into it rather than his reaction of not caring what people are saying.  But I have to ask Steve, look into what?  For starters the bodies had to have already been taken away.  And even if they hadn’t, what would he find?  I bunch of burned bodies.  He didn’t know anything about the special bullets being used.  Lois never told him.  In fact that’s the only lead Lois even has to further investigate.  Where exactly is Steve’s logic?

Steve states that Superman and Lois’ relationship is underdeveloped and horribly toxic.  What?  What does that even mean?!?!  He says he doesn’t know what either of them wants from the other.  I can’t help but laugh at the absurdity of that statement.  What does anyone want in a relationship and what does anyone want from their significant other.  He argues that Lois and Clark’s relationship makes no sense as if any relationship is supposed to have more purpose than simply two people loving each other.  No, instead he insists that Lois is supposed to be Superman’s world and his connection to humanity but that Martha fills that role.  In what way is the love a mother the same as the love of a mate?  And in what scenario is it healthy for a man’s mother to be his world?  Furthermore, if Steve claims that Man of Steel failed at making Martha Superman’s connection to humanity, why would he question Lois filling that role? 

Then Steve assumes that Superman thinks Earth isn’t his world because he thinks he belongs on Krypton.  Not only does the movie never state that or imply it in any way, but the whole point of him feeling this isn’t his world goes over Steve’s head which is that the world is not accepting him as one of them making him feel always separate from humanity.  Then Steve questions what kind of hope Superman is supposed to be inspiring.  I’m sorry.  Are there different kinds of hope?  Is there good hope and bad hope?  He then asks what people see Superman as aside from a being that can save them from danger and what he is to the general public.  This is the whole point of the movie.  This is the question that’s being addressed!  If you don’t see this then you aren’t watching the same movie.  The world is trying to decide what Superman is and Lex plays on that perception in order to slander him and make the public question his existence.  In fact Batman flat out says in the closing scenes of the movie that “Men are still good.  We fight, we kill, we betray one another, but we can rebuild, we can do better, we will, we have to.”  THAT is the hope Superman is inspiring!

Steve mocks the scene of Superman being consoled by his mother demanding Superman to speak and implies the fact that he doesn’t say anything makes the scene not work.  This is yet another scene that Steve doesn’t understand.  I’d love to know what Steve thinks Superman should say here.  There really is nothing to say.  Superman is taking in advice from his mother like a good farm boy trying to decide exactly what he wants to do and how he should handle the situation.  He doesn’t know his place in the world and he struggles with it throughout the movie, which is why he doesn’t speak out about where he stands.  This inner struggle about his place in the world is even acknowledged in his scene with Lois on the balcony.  His one chance to finally address the world is at the Senate which makes Lex blowing it up all the more powerful, because it would work against Lex’s plans if Superman were to have an open dialogue.  And the fact that Steve calls Superman’s response in the explosion subdued suggests he doesn’t understand the emotional struggle Superman is feeling in that scene.  It did not warrant that type of scream that he suggests.  The people were already dead and there was nothing Superman could do at that point.  In fact two of the reactions he compares this scene to involve an extreme sense of fear at someone dying, not of people already dead with nothing that can be done about it.  Finally, the third involves a reaction to directly killing someone with Superman’s own hands.  The fact that he is comparing these emotional reactions to Superman’s emotional reaction in the Senate shows a lack of understanding of the scene and of basic human psychology.

Steve takes several quick jabs about randomly put together.

Why does Alfred say Superman is not their enemy?  Because Alfred is not blinded by fear and rage and sees the good Superman is doing.

Why does Superman turn to the mountains?  Because just like in the comics and like anyone might do he goes to a place of solitude to think, to be away from all the noise and distractions of the world.

Why can Clark stand for something in 1938 but not now?  Because if you know anything about the world and its history you know that newspapers were read far more in 1938 and they made a far greater impact than they do today in a world overrun by social media.

Why does the scene with Jonathan Kent work exactly the way Steve says it sets out to do?  Because watching Clark talk to himself on screen would be dumb as movies are not the best medium for inner monologue.

The fact that Steve questions why Superman would do anything to save Lois, the woman that he loves, is probably the most idiotic thing in this whole video rant.  Seriously?  Calling Superman overly infatuated?  I don’t know Steve personally, but I have to wonder if he has ever been in love.  If you love someone you would raise heaven and earth for them.  He cites the fact that Superman becomes a tyrannical monster once Lois dies.  Has he never watched any show or movie in which a spouse dies leaving a completely grief stricken widow or even heard of people dying from heartache from losing a spouse?  It is completely asinine.  What does Lois love about Superman?  Well ignoring the fact that he’s Superman, and the fact that he is a loving, caring, attractive person, I say what does anyone love about their significant other?

Steven needs his art spoon fed to him.  Often, subtlety is what makes good art good.  Steven considers this movie’s subtleties an insult to his “intelligence”.  

Steven Baxi's "Batman v Superman: A Beautiful Lie":

https://youtu.be/V7Z2AKOrQg4?t=22m1s