Stories in Practice: "Civil War" v. "Dawn of Justice"
- M-C-You
- Jun 2, 2019
- 7 min read
Updated: Jul 27, 2019
2016. The US seemingly divided, but the theaters weren't. Why?
Hello, and welcome back to another blog, courtesy of nerdiness and over-caffienated rants!
I'd like to start a series of posts talking about what makes a great story, and to start off I wanted to chew on something meaty...
For this post, I thought I'd boil down why two of comic book's biggest events released their film adaptations, and where one movie got praises, the other got split reviews. Why?
I'm an analyst. I'm also a closet writer, and an avid storyteller. I've loved reading, and I've loved films as an artform. So when I saw "Cap 3" and "Batman v. Superman," I knew right away what the difference was. I wasn't thinking from a storytelling perspective, though. When the lights went down in those two different theaters, I was just a viewer, excited to see what each film had to offer.
Captain America: Civil War was a box-office powerhouse, with a budget of $250M and a profit of $1.153... BILLION. (1)
Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice was ALSO a great film. BUT, it was budgeted between $250M and $300M, and earned $873.6M. (2)
So what happened?
Captain America, or a Nomad?
Captain America's third outing concluded Cap's arc from a soldier who took orders to a confident, free-thinking moral force. In a dark twist, that confidence was warped into a self-righteousness that fractured the organization meant to protect the world from danger. The implications moving forward, as well as the circumstances entering the film, made this a tense, emotional, and impactful outing for the MCU at large, and Steve Rogers more intimately.
BvS: Batman's DC Extended Universe Film
Going into the film, I thought it was a Superman sequel. It was supposed to be hopeful and bright and emotional and impactful. But it fell short for me on my first viewing. Heck, it fell short for several viewings. And this is why audiences were split with this film.
The reason that Captain America 3 was so powerful, and Batman v. Superman was so split, was because of a lack of protagonist focus. Where Cap 3 confidently focused on it's two titans, and their ideologies, Batman v. Superman did not help the audience focus in on it's titular character, the films protagonist, even after introducing the many ideologies in question, from EVERY side (Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, Lex Luthor, the list goes on). So, that leaves the question: between Wonder Woman, Superman and Batman, who is the protagonist, the one we should root for?
Narrative hinges on a character that we follow, that we desire to emulate, or that we feel for: the protagonist. In many ways, BvS does something that Cap 3 doesn't: it makes it's protagonist feel like the villain, and that's where we get lost as viewers. Without a character that we are clearly supposed to be rooting for, we as viewers lose the reason why the story matters. And between Batman and Superman, we are led to believe that EACH character is the protagonist, AND the villain.
In Darkest Knight...
The title of the film begins with "Batman." The film itself begins with Bruce Wayne's origins as the Batman, and the irony of his "rise" into the Batman persona. The darkness of the film is a direct call to the OG Batman that fans know and love. Batman is known to be brooding. And YES, he's known to be lethal and angry, but only in a few groups of comics. But that was a conscientious decision: THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A DIFFERENT BATMAN.
With the Nolan trilogy of Batman films on everyone's minds as this film released, audiences were primed to focus on Bruce Wayne, with the expectation that "Batman does not kill." With the release of Man of Steel, another part of the audience was primed to root for Superman. At least in a narrative sense, BvS was already starting on the wrong foot.
Here's a few ideas on how to properly identify the protagonist of a film. Remember, if you don't know your protagonist, you have no way to engage in the story. Even if you give evidences for who to root for by the film, if your evidences clash, your audience gets confused, and they're left wondering why the story didn't hit them as hard:
1. Who does the film introduce, through allusion?
2. Who has the greatest stakes throughout the story?
3. Who has the greatest amount of change?
4. Who does the film close on?
Now, if you're already fuming because BvS doesn't follow this mold, that's my point:
The film opens on Batman's origins, and then transitions into his motivations for the film.
Batman's stakes are the highest, because he realizes his entire purpose for existing is being threatened, by his own fear, but Superman's conflicts (as valid and fun to watch as they are) fight for our attentions. Superman has the world to save... which he is fully capable of doing. His main conflicts are Lois Lane, and his mother, both of which are threatened in this film. But Batman has a CHANCE that he could lose himself, and a CHANCE that he might not, and this uncertainty is at the root of all great drama. Drama comes because a character who we are following, and primed to follow in a story, either decides to change, or not. The nature of the stakes in this film, coupled with the realization that Superman, a being from another world, is actually as human as anyone ("Martha" ... I still don't get why people didn't like this), forces Bruce to reconsider his role as the Batman as it stands.
And in the end, the film closes on Batman walking away from Superman's tomb... right?
Actually, it closes on dirt rising from Superman's grave. It's a great moment, and one that doesn't undercut Batman's arc at all. It sets up the next film and the possibility that Superman will return. But it breaks one of the main rules of narrative by emphasing another character that is NOT the true protagonist, is the protagonist, further confusing the audience.
I also add that, this film was TRYING to be a Superman sequel, and in that much, it did a good job. If you watch the film from HIS perspective, you get a great new threat to Superman, one that isn't physical that he can punch or melt his way through. His threat is the esoteric nature of politics, law and perception. But on first viewing, I was confused as to which character I should have followed, when in reality, it's not only possible but SUPPOSED to be both. I just feel like this film needed to focus on Batman as the main character in order to hone in on the comparisons between the characters, and to accentuate the themes introduced and actions taken by Superman's character in the story.
I DO believe that each film is a fantastic addition to their respective franchises. Through study and repeated viewings, I've learned that Batman v. Superman lacked a focus on a single protagonist, so audiences left confused with who to root for, and what the film's ultimate message was. If Superman is the protagonist, we're lead to believe a very Judeo-Christian message of "For God so loved the world (or Lois Lane)" proportions, and I mean that. She is a very little person in a very big world, but because she means so much to Superman, this uber-powerful being, she becomes tantamount by default, and that's ok. It's ok to have romance be the main thing a character fights for. Lois, this insignificant person among billions, means something to a being with God-like powers. That's also a powerful message alone. With Batman as the protagonist, the drama is there. The personal conflict and wrestling of emotion is there. The change and catharsis of character flaws is there. And we get to see one of the most KICK BUTT VERSIONS OF BATMAN ON SCREEN... I mean, I do not want to find this Batman in a dark alley... or a brightly lit street.
For me, this film ought to be watched with the following expectations on first viewing: Superman is the central figure of the moral dilemma in the narrative, and Batman is the protagonist who must fight, externally and internally, to overcome that adversity. When the film is structured in this way, the ultimate sacrifice of Clark Kent on behalf of the world is much more powerful, and the revelation that "Men are still good" that Bruce has because of said sacrifices becomes much more stirring. In fact, it's this understanding that helped me truly appreciate this film as the fantastic piece of art it is, AND as a standalone film from the likes of Marvel, and Civil War specifially. I can honestly say that BvS left me literally inspired after credits rolled, as opposed to my (very positive) experience in Civil War,where I felt anxious to know what happens next, but with no real catharsis of emotion.
Final Thoughts
The DCEU began with Superman, as the comics did. The DCEU's second outing is truly a Batman Solo film (that point doesn't make it across very well with viewers), with full-length cameos from Clark Kent and the Amazonian God-Killer to boot. It's an amazingly fun, vibrant, and nuanced comic-book film. Again, this is Batman's movie. But the role of protagonist feels like a rubberband pulled in three different directions. Aspiring writers should note that, when this happenn (when the character filling the role of your protagonist is unclear), the adversity facing them gets muddled, and so does the story.
That said, the creative choices of the DCEU are starkly (lols puns) different from Marvel, and that's a good thing. The realism that comes from the DCEU does NOT mean that Marvel is unrealisic with the quips and jokes. People respond to trials, threats and danger in different ways, and the two comic giants each have their creative ways to address this through dialogue and action. In DCEU's case, a more serious approach isn't just stylistic, but necessary to tell the best story, and likewise in the opposite direction for Marvel.
In the end, I went into BvS with the expectation that this film would 1. be a Superman sequel, and 2. be like a Marvel movie. Big mistake. These are two very different universes, and each one should be considered as such before judgements are made as to the artistic and philosophical worth of the other. No amount of bias could sway the fact that I enjoyed Cap 3, and BvS. But stylistic choices can muddle how an audience member understands the points the film is trying to make. In that much, it takes a bit more work to ascertain, but in a way, that makes BvS's experience more rewarding, multilayered, and deeply resonant.
I look forward to hearing my buddy Sorcerer Supremo has to say about this.
Thanks for reading! Be sure to check out our other blogs, and share with your nerdy friends! Let us know what we should write on next!
Comments