BvS UE is a Watchmen-style deconstruction.
It is important to understand the influence that Zack Snyder’s 2009 film adaptation of Alan Moore’s groundbreaking comic series Watchmen had upon BvS.
In a Wall Street Journal interview published on the opening weekend of BvS Zack Snyder commented on the influence of Watchmen on Batman v Superman:
Snyder sees his new movie as “a little bit” of a continuation of themes and concepts he explored in “Watchmen,” his 2009 adaptation of the groundbreaking graphic novel by Alan Moore which deconstructed the notion of superheroes. “It’s all about the ‘why’ of superheroes: the political why, the religious why, the philosophical why,” Snyder says.
But now he can play with those ideas using actual iconic characters instead of ones such as Nite Owl and Dr. Manhattan, which represent archetypes of iconic characters. “Once you’ve absorbed that material, there’s no way it doesn’t resonate with you, especially when you’re dealing with characters like Batman and Superman and Wonder Woman, who are basically the trinity,” Snyder says. “In some ways, this will be, I hope at it’s really best, the impossible version of ‘Watchmen’.”
Similarly, listen to Snyder discuss the impact that Watchmen had upon his approach to Man of Steel starting at around 5:40:
Here’s a transcription of that section from the interview (starting at 6:00 in the above video):
After 300 they (Warner Brothers) asked me if I was interested in making a Superman movie… I was working on Watchmen at the time… In my mind… And that’s a hard jump! Just as far as I’m deep in Watchmen, I’m deep in deconstructing superheroes. So, ‘Hey, you wanna make a Superman movie?’ It’s like, I’m about to tear him down! I’m gonna kill him! I’m not interested in fixing him. Or making him interesting. He’s the enemy right now…
And then you finish Watchmen… And because I was a fan of the comic books… Also, it’s sort of the ‘evolved’ version of comic books. Like, Watchmen, right? It’s the ‘I’m like an intellectual who likes comic books, so I like Watchmen’. And I’m going to make that into a movie to justify my love of comic books, whatever…
And then once that’s out of your system, though, I gotta say… There’s a hollowness to the end of Watchmen, right? Especially in in geekdom… You know? Like you’ve finished Watchmen and you’re like ‘oof’! There’s no hope!… Is there a way to… isn’t there a way to… to love… Is it okay to love this?
And I think that’s the relationship I had with Superman in making the film (Man of Steel)… I really wanted to love Superman. You know? I want Superman to be ‘okay’! Because he represents so much. He’s the first. He’s the greatest superhero. He’s the top of the pyramid. Especially in the DC universe. In my opinion in all of comics. He’s certainly the first. And I would argue that he’s the godfather in every genre of comic book. And to make him work is to legitimize that whole world (superheroes, comic books).
And so the responsibility I had on myself… and I don’t think moviegoers will feel that or see that… But for me, the responsibility was to make him (Superman) work, and you’re justifying the ‘why’ of comic books. Or the ‘why’ of graphic storytelling. All that. I know it sounds heady, but…
The term “deconstruction” has deep, arcane philosophical underpinnings, especially as it applies to literary and film criticism, that extend far beyond the scope of our discussion of Watchmen and BvS. For our purposes I’m simply going to define deconstruction as the act of taking apart of an ideal or stereotype in order to show how it is constructed, and by virtue of that process dispelling illusions it creates. It’s akin to showing how a magic trick works.
Here is a summary of Watchmen from Encyclopedia Britanica:
… A deconstruction of classic comics, Watchmen considered how real-life superheroes would affect the world around them and how everyday people would react to them. The story begins with an apparent conspiracy to kill or neutralize costumed superheroes. At its conclusion, a more nefarious plot is uncovered, involving a staged alien invasion that kills thousands of residents of New York. The United States and the Soviet Union step back from the brink of nuclear war to confront this shared (and, unbeknownst to them, illusory) threat. Moore created a world previously unexplored in the genre—superheroes who were morally ambivalent—and his story line was complex, drawing heavily on irony, symbolism, and multiple perspectives to tell his tale. Adding to the uniqueness and impact of the series was Gibbons’s elegant, detailed artwork.
In many respects, Watchmen was the first postmodern superhero comic, examining the motivations, foibles, and desires that might drive people to don garish costumes and risk their lives. The series posed the question: if a real person had immense power, how would he or she use it? In the case of the sadistic Comedian and the sociopathic Rorschach, power amplified and fed their natural violence. For Doctor Manhattan—a being with almost limitless powers—it led to a growing isolation and indifference toward others. For the “smartest man alive,” as Ozymandias is called, power forced upon him the messianic role of the world’s saviour. Indeed, in the series’ denouement, he prevents the impending apocalypse, albeit at enormous cost.
The first Superman comic appeared in 1938. The following year the first Batman comic was published. Traditional superhero mythology arose at a time when American culture held a worldview constructed in more simplistic, black and white binary terms of good and evil, right and wrong. I will explore that in some greater detail in the next section dealing with postmodernism. But suffice it to say that the superhero represents a classic ideal of virtue and honor. And in comic books the reader’s identification with those prosocial traits takes place within a fictional realm that is separate from the more complicated, much messier real world that we actually inhabit.
In classic superhero mythology we enter a fantasy world in which we take for granted that superheroes are a “good” or desirable thing for society to have. Their extraordinary existence generates no real controversy or questioning. They simply exist, they are part of the fabric of life, and human civilization is for the most part uncritically accepting of their presence.
Alan Moore’s Watchmen series, and Zack Snyder’s film adaptation of it, both ‘deconstruct’ or undo that avoidance of critical thinking in classic superhero storytelling. An even more direct way of describing what Alan Moore does with his Watchmen series is to note that implicitly asks the following questions. Despite the fantasy of superheroes, and the escapism and inspiration that they provide us: If superheroes existed in our real world, would that actually be a good thing? Is it really something we would actually want?
In Watchmen the answer is a resounding no. The godlike Dr. Manhattan politically supports the U.S. in the Viet Nam war, becoming the ultimate super weapon for the nation–and thereby wins Richard Nixon four consecutive terms (via legislation similar to that used for FDR in WWII). Comedian is co-opted by the CIA for black ops missions including assassination of JFK. Rorschach is a severely disturbed individual and very clearly not someone that we would want going around meting out vigilante justice in real life. Adrian Vengt, aka Ozymandias, believes that he has the noble obligation to essentially to assume leadership of the world as a benevolent dictator; and in order to try to achieve that goal he kills millions of innocent people in New York via a cataclysm that is a staged event. (In Snyder’s film it is Dr. Manhattan’s and Adrian’s attempt to design of a zero point free energy source versus the comic series’ alien invasion. But that is arguably more grounded and cynical about the real world we live in.) In a nutshell, power went to Adrian’s head. He became a megalomaniac. Even with Dan and Laurie who are shown to be most self-effacing, honorable, and stable, there is the suggestion that when active as superheroes they got pathologically addicted to the adventure, danger, and violence of their vigilantism.
The illusion that is dispelled by the deconstruction in Watchmen is that of classical superhero mythology: the notion that superheroes could unerringly exist as pure exemplars of our greatest innate potentials for good as human beings. And that society could easily abide the existence of superheroes.
So we know directly from Zack Snyder himself that he hoped BvS would be his “impossible Watchmen.” Does that mean that Snyder wished to subvert classical superhero tropes as Watchmen does, but instead using Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman?
Here is a bit of video that addresses just the introduction of Superman in Man of Steel, but in so doing provides the broader answer, I think:
Here’s a transcription of what Snyder says:
I’ve never felt like a movie should exist in the real world before. But I felt like Superman should. Like we’ve designed the movie as a movie that we shoot on location a lot, and in real settings with real situations. Because I feel like the most realistic movie I’ll make is a movie with Superman in it. Which I think is ironic but in some ways right. Because I like the idea that… in order to support him… Like Superman has never existed that way! Right? In some ways for me to do a stylized Superman movie is to do all the movies that have been made. Because all Superman movies that have been made exist in some sort of weird stylized world where everyone’s like ‘apple pie and Chevrolet’, and it’s like madness, right? It’s like the American Dream in a weird way… The thing I find interesting is being able to release the character from that world, that stylized world where he’s been stuck and shackled. And bring him to our world and see what he does.
If Snyder is taking this approach to Superman… and remember, he has even said that Superman is representative of all superheroes in general… It naturally follows that he applies the same concept to all the other DC superheroes in the larger universe he is creating.
When we add up what I have assembled thus far it seems clear that BvS re-imagines the DC trinity of Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman in opposition to the assumptive reality of classic superhero mythology, where escapism into a world of comfortable, familiar tropes soothes and comforts us. No, that is not where Snyder is taking us at all. Rather, these superheroes are shown as if existing in our real world. If they actually existed in our society today what might that look like? And then what are the broader implications of such a realistic existence, both for society and the superheroes themselves?
The U.S. Senate is deeply concerned about Superman acting unilaterally. Superman performs good deeds, thankfully. But he acts within a democratic nation of laws. By whose authority should he act?
As we see, on the international stage even Superman’s well meaning rescue of Lois Lane in Nairomi appears to have had some sort unintended negative consequence upon a CIA covert operation. Superman’s actions also end up being manipulated by a CIA shadow operation (headed in the field by Anatoli Knyazev, who we find is ultimately working for LexCorp). The point is that the world is a big place with many interconnections. Having a super powered being like Superman behaving independently on the world stage potentially upsets all sorts of geopolitical strategies.
Clark Kent the journalist objects to Batman’s cruel vigilantism because of its clear violation of human rights. We can safely assume that Superman only behaves prosocially and strives to avoid harming others in any way whenever possible. But as noted, Superman himself is called to the carpet by the U.S. Senate for acting outside of the law.
Clark struggles with the very same question. In fact it appears to weigh heavily on him. As it should for anyone who cares deeply about respecting and maintaining the institutions of our democracy! (He is a journalist, let’s not forget.)
The U.S. government fears Superman because they can’t control him. But as we so vividly see in the scenes involving Lex Luthor and Senators Finch and Barrows, the U.S. government is untrustworthy and corrupt. Luthor so easily being able to buy power and influence makes that plain as day. (Ironically, it is the same basic problem on a larger scale that Batman has endured for two decades with the corrupt legal and court system of Gotham.) Clark’s comment to Lois that “Superman was never real” and “just a dream of a farmer from Kansas” reflects the real world difficulties that such a being as Superman would actually face. Whatever lofty ideals we hold and however we might imagine Superman living up to them, in reality it would be virtually impossible. In order to always do the right thing Superman would be often forced to act independently and outside the law–essentially making him a renegade and criminal. In our real world he would have to intervene with governments. And that is troubling to someone who values the principles behind law and order, as Clark clearly does.
As for Batman, a lifetime of unresolved psychological trauma has led him down a very, very dark path. Even if Batman may have tried to avoid killing early on in his career (it is never directly addressed, although Alfred queries Bruce “new rules?” in reference to torture and Bat-branding), regardless, after twenty years Batman has become indifferent to killing in self-defense. Does anyone doubt killing would be routinely required if he occupied the real world? As see in the scenes of Batman chasing after the Kryptonite and the warehouse rescue of Martha Kent, the fire power of his opponents is just too great for him to rely solely on stealth and gadgets to always avoid killing in realistic scenarios. Realistically, that approach would just get Batman killed many times over. (As Zack Snyder has famously said about that subject, “Wake the f–k up!”)
But it has clearly taken a toll on Bruce psychologically. His soul isn’t in good shape. (Which is beautifully and subtly acted by Ben Affleck.)
Interestingly, in Bruce’s ‘hero’s journey’ in the story of BvS, it is Bruce being being drawn toward Superman as a perceived threat that ultimately brings about healing in him. It reminds me of something that James Hillman, a famous Jungian psychotherapist, once said about problems that clients present with, the distress or unhappiness that brings them to therapy: “Why is this disturbance coming in my life. What does it want?” In other words, the problem is in effect an agency of the psyche that is pushing the person to overcome an inner obstacle, to make some sort of important development or progress in the soul, etc.
In any event, the problems of occupying the real world for Bruce are more personal and psychological, compared with Superman. As Bruce says to Alfred “we’ve always been criminals” and he’s comfortable with vigilantism given that Gotham’s system of law and order is so hopelessly broken. But he needed to heal and he finds new existential meaning at the end of the tale by applying his talents toward a threat that affects the entire planet.
As Snyder says, the film invites us to ponder “the political why, the religious why, the philosophical why” regarding these three superheroes. BvS does not however presume to tell us what the answers to those questions are. The film forces us to make inferences, connect dots, and interpret possible meaning for ourselves, individually. That reflects the very postmodernism that the heroes find themselves inhabiting. And like the protagonists we as viewers must ultimately negotiate this problem on our own. It’s a point that I will examine in this article, however.
In closing for this section I will restate what I said on the BvS page outlining the five main arguments for why BvS is a masterpiece: “Inspired by Watchmen, BvS UE deconstructs the superhero genre–a fact that most critics either were oblivious towards, failed to examine with an open mind, or found intolerable on general principles.” If you understand this analysis and agree with it, at least in the broadest strokes, then it is painfully obvious that many if not most critics that bashed the film did one or more of those things. They either completely missed that it was a deconstruction. Or if they did understand it as a deconstruction, that chafed against their sensibilities because they want superheroes to reflect a more simplistic, escapist, comforting, and modernist worldview.
The Snyderverse 