I think it's safe to say that the 90s was a strange time for rock music. We saw the more or less linear evolution of Punk and Metal in the late 70s and 80s, two genres that, despite their anti-authoritarian or subversive message, were pretty well-defined. Even the Goth scene, a movement that at times dips into genres beyond Punk and Metal (such as Electronica), was pretty formulaic in its approach to what constitutes "Goth" music. Once the 90s came along, however, rock musicians began to experiment. The traditional formulas of Punk, Metal, and Classic Rock were left by the wayside and we saw the advent of things like "Progressive” rock and "Alternative” rock and “Grunge”. Songs like “Smells Like Teen Spirit” and “Losing My Religion” signaled a paradigm shift in the approach to rock music in the early 90s, and the quick rise of bands like Nirvana and R.E.M. paved the way other Grunge and Alternative rock acts such as Pearl Jam, the Red Hot Chili Peppers, and Primus. Everything else was more or less pushed back underground and Grunge was left to define the decade – that is, until the response finally came in the second half of the decade, in the form of Industrial Rock.
Industrial Rock can trace its roots back primarily to the Goth rock and Electronica scene of the 1980s. One can point to the dissolution of Joy Division and the advent of New Order as an early example of where we begin to see the crossover between rock and electronic music. The Cure were also reputed to implement things like synthesizers and experimental noises into their music (the albums Faith and Pornography can be cited as early examples of this). Covenant and Kraftwerk are also sometimes cited as more electronic influences on the genre. By the late 1980s, the groundwork had been set and we begin to see the genre take shape; Ministry had released their album The Land of Rape and Honey in 1988 and Nine Inch Nails had begun writing Pretty Hate Machine that same year.
However, the fledging Industrial rock genre, serving as an evolution of the Goth and Electronica scenes of the 1980s, became a casualty of the rise of Grunge and Alternative rock in the early 1990s. The popularity of Nirvana’s Nevermind and R.E.M’s Out of Time brought about an abandonment of the now well-established Punk, Metal, and Electronica, or any off-shoot of them, in favor of things like the down tempo, gritty guitar sounds of Grunge, or the introduction of non-traditional instruments in Alternative rock (such as the mandolin in “Losing My Religion”), or even the fusion of rock with funk and slap bass that we find with the Red Hot Chili Peppers and Primus. Despite the success of Pretty Hate Machine, Industrial rock remained something underground.
Fortunately, the experimental nature of the early 1990s didn't last long. Around the mid-90s, we begin to see Industrial rock rise in popularity, mostly as a response to popularity of Grunge at the time. Nine Inch Nails is usually credited as being at the forefront of the Industrial movement; The Downward Spiral is considered one of the band's finest albums and they found success with songs like "Closer" and "Wish". 1996 saw the release of Marilyn Manson's second album, Antichrist Superstar, in which we can see a return to the dark aesthetic and "shock" performance that we saw with Metal and Punk bands of the 1980s. Adding on to the snowballing success of the genre, Rob Zombie released his debut solo album, Hellbilly Deluxe, in 1998, bringing with it such definitive tracks as "Dragula" and "Superbeast" ("Meet the Creeper" was also notably featured on the soundtrack to Twisted Metal III). It is also in 1998 that Orgy released their cover of the New Order song "Blue Monday", which ranked highly on numerous top 10 and top 40 charts.
Then, at the turn of the century, everything went underground again. This new century seems to have brought with it the rise in popularity of such genres as "Metalcore", “Post-Punk”, "Post-Hardcore", and “Emo” rock. And while there has been a renewed interest in Metal and Punk (the success of bands like The Casualties and Rancid is testament to this), these genres aren't experiencing growth like they did in the 1980s, and the advent of Industrial in the late 1990s seems to have fizzled out with it (it also probably didn't help that Industrial was briefly associated with a certain high school shooting in the late 1990s either). I think it's safe to say that there hasn't been a new definitive entry in the Industrial genre since the late 90s, and any success that the genre has seen since then has come from its already established acts (for example, "The Hand that Feeds" and "Came Back Haunted" are both successful tracks from Nine Inch Nails). It's a shame insofar as Industrial was perhaps the best innovation in rock music from the 1990s (better than Grunge - sorry Nirvana fans), and songs like "Sin", "The Beautiful People", and "Superbeast" are infinitely better than most things making the stage at modern rock music festivals. This is not a call for Industrial to be given the same kind of mainstream attention as other contemporary acts. On the contrary, much like Punk and Metal, Industrial rock is not designed to have the same kind of mainstream success as certain rock acts today. Rather, this is simply a lament that, while we have started to see renewed interest and innovation in Punk and Metal, Industrial has more or less been left derelict.
Still, there may be hope yet. Like any other genre, Industrial seems to be evolving. On the one hand, there are those acts that stay true to its rock roots, using heavily distorted guitars and acoustic drums - Godflesh is a good example of this, as well as Millennium-era Front Line Assembly. On the other hand, there are those acts that have gravitated more towards the electronic elements of Industrial, minimizing the use of distorted guitars and relying more on creating the oppressive atmosphere associated with Industrial through the use of synthesizers, keyboards, and drum machines. Sometimes referred to as "Aggrotech", one can usually find the likes of Suicide Commando, God Module, and Combichrist in this camp. It may also be worthwhile to point out that there seems to have been an increased interest in this "Electro-Industrial" genre in recent years, interestingly coinciding with the advent of electronic music in general this century. As long as we recognize these two evolutionary branches of Industrial, we may yet see a resurgence in the near future; the Rivethead culture often associated with Industrial seems to be making a comeback, and the persistent success of acts such as Nine Inch Nails seems to be drawing continued attention to the genre. Perhaps we will even see a repeat of what we saw in the late 90s, where Industrial re-emerges as a response to the current obsession society has with "Metalcore" and "Dubstep" (one can only hope).
Originally written for LIKEYOUSAID Magazine 4/15/2016.
Sunday, April 24, 2016
Is 2016 the Most Punk Year in U.S. Politics?
It goes without saying that 2016 is an important year in American politics. And, by this point, it also goes without saying that 2016 may very well be one of the most bizarre years in American politics. Yes, I am referring to the current election season, culminating with the advent of a new president which, given the current field of candidates, may drastically change our lives forever. Whether or not this is for the better or for the worse would depend on which side of the political spectrum you fall on. Unlike previous election years, our options seem to cover a much broader range on the spectrum; to the left, we have a candidate who aims to bring American politics and culture more in line with that of European and Canadian “democratic socialism”, and to the right, we have a candidate that suggests that building walls on our borders will somehow fix America's problems and that, for those problems that a wall can't fix, we do something to remove those that feel like there's a problem (i.e. deporting immigrants, punishing women who get an abortion, sucker-punching those who disagree, etc.). Given this apparent polarization of American politics, there is a sense in which this is the most "punk" year in election history, and, regardless of which side of the ideological spectrum you fall on, the role of punk rock and punk culture this election season is more important than ever.
One may argue that this is the most "anti-establishment" U.S. presidential election ever, which, in the most basic sense, captures the spirit of the punk movement. Throughout the 20th Century, American politics fluctuated between being slightly left-of-center or slightly right-of-center, where Franklin Delano Roosevelt is usually heralded as the paragon of liberalism while Ronald Reagan is usually idolized as the ideal conservative. Far-left or far-right wing movements were never widely recognized in American politics. In fact, during the 20th Century, proponents of far-left or far-right ideas were usually scrutinized and persecuted (see the McCarthyism paranoia of the 1950s), and there is even evidence suggesting that proponents of these ideas are still being harassed and persecuted in the 21st Century (as May Day protestor Leah Lynn Plante laments: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctdn9xVXSo8).
Suddenly, however, it would seem as if this election season has evaporated a lot of the remaining doubt and skepticism the American public may have had about far-left or far-right wing ideas. Bernie Sanders, for example, has brought the notion of "democratic socialism" to the mainstream American public, advocating for an amalgam of ideas championed by the likes of former British prime minister Tony Blair and ex-Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, such as a heavy involvement by the federal government in regulating capitalism and universal healthcare coverage. Conversely, Donald Trump has exploded onto the forefront of the Republican Party, a billionaire business tycoon with virtually no political experience, in a party where experience and "traditional" political values are held in high regard, and has seemingly hijacked the spotlight from the conservative establishment. He is an advocate of mass surveillance programs, "closing down parts of the Internet", stopping vaccinations because "they cause autism", and building a wall on the Mexican border to keep "murderers, drugs, and rapists" out, among other things. The popularity of both Sanders and Trump seems to have polarized the American political spectrum this election season, providing an alternative to the slightly left-of-center or slightly right-of-center establishment.
Such a polarization of the political spectrum has been reflected in the punk scene for a much longer period of time. One can point to the anarcho-punk movement of the late 1970s/early 1980s as an example of the intersection between far-left ideology and punk rock. British band Crass is usually cited as a paradigmatic example, espousing a lifestyle of anarchism, pacifism, and environmentalism outlined in the songs "Bloody Revolutions" and "Big A Little a". Other anarcho-punk bands were quick to follow suit; that same message of pacifism can be found in Antischism's song "Salvation or Annihilation" or Nausea's "Smash Racism". And, of course, left-wing ideology need not be confined to anarchism or pacifism, or even anarcho-punk. California skate punk has often had many anti-authority, anti-establishment, and left-wing views since its inception in the 80s. One simply need look no further than Bad Religion, a band founded on the resistance to the American religious establishment (as suggested by their song "American Jesus"). Bad Religion's albums touch on a broad array of social issues plaguing American culture, from the environmental and cultural impact of unrestrained technological advancement ("Progress" on No Control) to the inherent irrational nature of human "animals" ("New Dark Ages" on New Maps of Hell). And, of course, the California punk scene extends well beyond Bad Religion, and anti-establishment themes can be found in many other songs from many other bands (such as "Skate or Die" from D.I. and "Abolish Government" by T.S.O.L.). Such leftist and anti-establishment themes have even seen some mainstream success with Green Day's 2004 album American Idiot, much to the dismay of punk rock "purists" who maintain that punk rock is something that should inherently be an underground movement. The anti-establishment attitude of punk rock has, at times, been so strong that some bands have even "circled back" and criticized the "punk establishment" itself (Milo Goes to College by the Descendents is a good example of an album that does this).
To be fair, there are several notable cases of those in the punk movement advocating more right-wing, or even centrist, views. In 2004, The Guardian published an article about those in the punk movement that supported the re-election of George W. Bush (http://www.theguardian.com/music/2004/jul/07/uselections2004.popandrock), which includes an interview with former Misfits frontman Michael Graves, where he notes that "in American mainstream culture, the cool thing to do now is to hate the government and speak out against the war". The article also notes that, when the Ramones were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, Johnny Ramone famously announced "God bless President Bush and God bless America", in stark contrast to views of, say, Bad Religion or Green Day above. There are even notable cases where those in the punk movement have advocated ultra-nationalist or neo-Nazi themes. British band Skrewdriver is often credited as being at the forefront of this movement, having been a crucial part of the Rock Against Communism movement in the 1970s, in opposition to bands like Crass and The Clash.
It should be clear at this point how this particular election season, in many ways, has come to represent the same polarization that we have seen in the punk movement for decades. Crass and Antischism were advocating environmentalism and uniting people well before Bernie Sanders decided to run for president (though, it should be noted that Sanders was advocating these things in U.S. politics well before the punk movement even began). Likewise, those in the punk scene who advocate for ultra-nationalist or anti-communist/anti-socialist views would likely find a candidate like Trump more appealing. And it should be pointed out that, of course, Sanders and Trump are not the only ones running for president. If you think that the most progressive thing would be to have a female president, regardless of what her views on various issues are, then you might find comfort in Hillary Clinton. Likewise, if you are a proponent of a centrist way of thinking, you might even consider voting for John Kasich come November.
Regardless of where you fall on the ideological spectrum, it would seem as if the behaviors advocated by the punk scene are more important than ever. This election season has been particularly brutal - we have seen Trump rallies erupt into violence, nationwide protests that have closed city streets, and armed civilians, who sometimes refer to themselves as a "militia", showing up at rallies and religious centers to threaten and intimidate immigrants. Many people in the U.S. would not find one or more of these things acceptable in a civilized society. Yet, depending on who gets elected this November, these things may very well become the norm. Accordingly, the most obvious way to voice your resistance to these things would be to make sure you vote this election season. For those of you who want to be a little more “pro-active” in your approach to addressing these issues, you might consider taking a page from Antischism or Nausea and participate in sit-ins and demonstrations. As I hinted at in the first paragraph, since this election is so polarized, the results of it may very well radically change the future of our lives forever.
Originally written for LIKEYOUSAID Magazine 4/11/2016.
One may argue that this is the most "anti-establishment" U.S. presidential election ever, which, in the most basic sense, captures the spirit of the punk movement. Throughout the 20th Century, American politics fluctuated between being slightly left-of-center or slightly right-of-center, where Franklin Delano Roosevelt is usually heralded as the paragon of liberalism while Ronald Reagan is usually idolized as the ideal conservative. Far-left or far-right wing movements were never widely recognized in American politics. In fact, during the 20th Century, proponents of far-left or far-right ideas were usually scrutinized and persecuted (see the McCarthyism paranoia of the 1950s), and there is even evidence suggesting that proponents of these ideas are still being harassed and persecuted in the 21st Century (as May Day protestor Leah Lynn Plante laments: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctdn9xVXSo8).
Suddenly, however, it would seem as if this election season has evaporated a lot of the remaining doubt and skepticism the American public may have had about far-left or far-right wing ideas. Bernie Sanders, for example, has brought the notion of "democratic socialism" to the mainstream American public, advocating for an amalgam of ideas championed by the likes of former British prime minister Tony Blair and ex-Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, such as a heavy involvement by the federal government in regulating capitalism and universal healthcare coverage. Conversely, Donald Trump has exploded onto the forefront of the Republican Party, a billionaire business tycoon with virtually no political experience, in a party where experience and "traditional" political values are held in high regard, and has seemingly hijacked the spotlight from the conservative establishment. He is an advocate of mass surveillance programs, "closing down parts of the Internet", stopping vaccinations because "they cause autism", and building a wall on the Mexican border to keep "murderers, drugs, and rapists" out, among other things. The popularity of both Sanders and Trump seems to have polarized the American political spectrum this election season, providing an alternative to the slightly left-of-center or slightly right-of-center establishment.
Such a polarization of the political spectrum has been reflected in the punk scene for a much longer period of time. One can point to the anarcho-punk movement of the late 1970s/early 1980s as an example of the intersection between far-left ideology and punk rock. British band Crass is usually cited as a paradigmatic example, espousing a lifestyle of anarchism, pacifism, and environmentalism outlined in the songs "Bloody Revolutions" and "Big A Little a". Other anarcho-punk bands were quick to follow suit; that same message of pacifism can be found in Antischism's song "Salvation or Annihilation" or Nausea's "Smash Racism". And, of course, left-wing ideology need not be confined to anarchism or pacifism, or even anarcho-punk. California skate punk has often had many anti-authority, anti-establishment, and left-wing views since its inception in the 80s. One simply need look no further than Bad Religion, a band founded on the resistance to the American religious establishment (as suggested by their song "American Jesus"). Bad Religion's albums touch on a broad array of social issues plaguing American culture, from the environmental and cultural impact of unrestrained technological advancement ("Progress" on No Control) to the inherent irrational nature of human "animals" ("New Dark Ages" on New Maps of Hell). And, of course, the California punk scene extends well beyond Bad Religion, and anti-establishment themes can be found in many other songs from many other bands (such as "Skate or Die" from D.I. and "Abolish Government" by T.S.O.L.). Such leftist and anti-establishment themes have even seen some mainstream success with Green Day's 2004 album American Idiot, much to the dismay of punk rock "purists" who maintain that punk rock is something that should inherently be an underground movement. The anti-establishment attitude of punk rock has, at times, been so strong that some bands have even "circled back" and criticized the "punk establishment" itself (Milo Goes to College by the Descendents is a good example of an album that does this).
To be fair, there are several notable cases of those in the punk movement advocating more right-wing, or even centrist, views. In 2004, The Guardian published an article about those in the punk movement that supported the re-election of George W. Bush (http://www.theguardian.com/music/2004/jul/07/uselections2004.popandrock), which includes an interview with former Misfits frontman Michael Graves, where he notes that "in American mainstream culture, the cool thing to do now is to hate the government and speak out against the war". The article also notes that, when the Ramones were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, Johnny Ramone famously announced "God bless President Bush and God bless America", in stark contrast to views of, say, Bad Religion or Green Day above. There are even notable cases where those in the punk movement have advocated ultra-nationalist or neo-Nazi themes. British band Skrewdriver is often credited as being at the forefront of this movement, having been a crucial part of the Rock Against Communism movement in the 1970s, in opposition to bands like Crass and The Clash.
It should be clear at this point how this particular election season, in many ways, has come to represent the same polarization that we have seen in the punk movement for decades. Crass and Antischism were advocating environmentalism and uniting people well before Bernie Sanders decided to run for president (though, it should be noted that Sanders was advocating these things in U.S. politics well before the punk movement even began). Likewise, those in the punk scene who advocate for ultra-nationalist or anti-communist/anti-socialist views would likely find a candidate like Trump more appealing. And it should be pointed out that, of course, Sanders and Trump are not the only ones running for president. If you think that the most progressive thing would be to have a female president, regardless of what her views on various issues are, then you might find comfort in Hillary Clinton. Likewise, if you are a proponent of a centrist way of thinking, you might even consider voting for John Kasich come November.
Regardless of where you fall on the ideological spectrum, it would seem as if the behaviors advocated by the punk scene are more important than ever. This election season has been particularly brutal - we have seen Trump rallies erupt into violence, nationwide protests that have closed city streets, and armed civilians, who sometimes refer to themselves as a "militia", showing up at rallies and religious centers to threaten and intimidate immigrants. Many people in the U.S. would not find one or more of these things acceptable in a civilized society. Yet, depending on who gets elected this November, these things may very well become the norm. Accordingly, the most obvious way to voice your resistance to these things would be to make sure you vote this election season. For those of you who want to be a little more “pro-active” in your approach to addressing these issues, you might consider taking a page from Antischism or Nausea and participate in sit-ins and demonstrations. As I hinted at in the first paragraph, since this election is so polarized, the results of it may very well radically change the future of our lives forever.
Originally written for LIKEYOUSAID Magazine 4/11/2016.
Monday, April 4, 2016
Review - Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
The opening paragraph of my film reviews usually consists of a brief
introduction and a description of the context leading up to it. However,
when it comes to Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, I feel inclined to
present my reaction to it up front, before any kind of introduction,
which, while trying to be as poetic and elegant as I can while staying
true to my raw feelings, can best be captured as follows: WHAT IN THE
HOLY FUCKING SHIT WAS THAT?? Ok, now that I have gotten that off my
chest, my review can continue as normal. I return to the realm of
writing after something of a hiatus since my Deadpool review. There were
a number of reasons for this, the most pressing of which being recent
financial obligations that I have to prepare for, which require that I
invest more time into things both at work and outside of work. That, and
a lack of films to write about that would generate a decent review (I
will admit that I started brainstorming and writing a new philosophical
piece last month, but, while working on it, I quickly realized that that
particular piece will take some time to produce). Thus, I figured that
the release of Batman v Superman would make for an opportune moment for
me to come back to writing. And it appears as if superhero films
continue to be the flavor of the decade, despite the strong performance
of Mad Max, Jurassic World, and Star Wars last year. New to the arena
this time around is Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, DC Comics'
attempt at entering into the fray with Marvel's Avengers, directed by
Zach Snyder.
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is the second installment of the DC Comics Cinematic Universe, after 2013's Man of Steel, and is meant to ultimately segue into a full-blown Justice League movie at some point in the future. And, in case you've lived under a rock for the better part of your life, the Justice League is DC's amalgam of their most famous superheroes, including Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman, who band together to fight evil, not unlike Marvel's Avengers, both of which appeared in the 1960s. The film stars Ben Affleck as Bruce Wayne/Batman and Henry Cavill as Clark Kent/Superman, with a supporting cast consisting of the likes of Laurence Fishburne, Diane Lane, Jeremy Irons, and Gal Gadot, and pits our two heroes against Superman's arch nemesis Lex Luthor, portrayed by Jesse Eisenburg. This also marks the first silver screen appearance of Batman since Chris Nolan's The Dark Knight Rises in 2012, and comes on the heels of Man of Steel, which, while not groundbreaking, is usually considered the most successful silver screen iteration of Superman to date (after a long list of failed attempts).
The film opens up with a re-enactment of the ending scene of Man of Steel, except told from the perspective of Bruce Wayne. Wayne finds himself running around frantically trying to save friends (and, interestingly, employees) from the chaos and destruction wrought by the final fight between Superman and General Zod. Faced with the sorrow and grief caused by all of the collateral damage, Wayne begins to harbor animosity towards Superman that festers as the film plays on. Fast forward to about two years after Man of Steel ends. Superman has become a kind of "on call" hero figure, appearing around the world to thwart evil wherever it may arise, while working as a journalist for the Metropolis newspaper The Daily Planet as his alter ego Clark Kent. Despite saving the world from General Zod and becoming a kind of celebrity figure, overall doing good throughout the world, Superman also has his share of detractors, including influential public officials in the U.S. Senate. These detractors see Superman as a kind of authoritarian figure, or a figure of unlimited power without any kind of checks or balances. Among them is the young, wealthy business and engineering tycoon Lex Luthor, who, through some shady business dealings around the world, comes across a large chunk of Kryptonite from Zod's failed attempt at terraforming Earth, found not far from a beach off the coast of the Indian Ocean.
Meanwhile, across the river from Metropolis in Gotham City, Batman continues to live up to his reputation as the mysterious vigilante, using his various gadgets and gizmos to bring evil-doers to justice, who, as far as this film is concerned, are usually petty street thugs. Of course, both heroes get their share of face time in the local media, Batman usually portrayed as a rogue vigilante, Superman as the paragon of righteousness, a messiah to some, a burgeoning dictator to others, including Wayne and Luthor. And it is through the media that Superman develops the perception that Batman is a kind of oppressor, skulking around the underbelly of Gotham to intimidate and threaten the destitute and dispossessed, many of whom have to resort to petty crime in order to survive. While this rivalry is developing, Luthor lobbies certain members of the U.S. Congress to help him weaponize the chunk of Kryptonite he managed to get his hands on as a kind of deterrent to Superman. After his proposal is ultimately rejected, he bombs the U.S. Capitol building, indirectly implicating Superman in the process. Wayne is then given reason to suspect Luthor of foul play, so, after researching recent projects that Luthor has been working on, Batman then manages to steal the chunk of Kryptonite from Luthor and uses it to create a spear designed to kill Superman. Eventually, with a little bit of coercion from Lex Luthor, our two heroes meet face to face and duke it out. That is, until the eventual interference of Lois Lane who manages to convince Batman to help Superman stop Luthor from using General Zod's ship to create an abominable Krypton creature. By the time our heroes put aside their differences, however, it is too late. The creature is released and the end of the film consists of our two heroes trying to find a way to stop it, eventually even getting help from Wonder Woman, who, quite literally, appears from nowhere.
As can be inferred from my opening evaluation of Batman v Superman at the outset, my overall impression of the film was pretty dismal. Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice more or less embodies everything that is wrong with superhero films, arguably even more so than the Avengers. It's difficult to even find a place to start critiquing it, there are so many to choose from. Perhaps the narrative and characters are a good place. Frankly, the story was mediocre and the character development is more or less what I would expect for a superhero movie, which is to say, virtually non-existent. I will admit that, while there are several comic series and superhero movies that I really enjoy (including Batman), Superman was never among them. The Superman series always struck me as boring and uninteresting. Superman is just too ridiculously overpowered - he flies, is faster than "a speeding bullet", near-impervious to damage (unless, of course, he is around Kryptonite), and shoots lasers out of his eyes, not to mention the fact he is jacked with an 8-pack and his pectorals always look like they are about to burst out of his shirt. He has virtually no flaws, and, for the flaws that he does have, they are not easy to exploit. Quite literally, the only creatures that stand a chance against Superman are otherwordly, much like the creature at the end of Dawn of Justice. But then, at this point, we have gone beyond the willful "suspension of disbelief" and completely detached the narrative from the viewers, instead focusing on an absolutely over-the-top fight between two ridiculously overpowered creatures. I continue to find myself perplexed by the fact that people are actually entertained by this - one thing that can make fiction really interesting is watching the characters grow and develop - watch their flaws be exploited, watch them learn from their mistakes, and watch them cope with everyday life, which makes them relatable to an audience. None of this applies to Superman (unless, of course, you're a shredded hunk with an 8-pack who can shoot lasers out of his eyes).
Of course, the film's problems go well beyond those of Superman. The overall narrative was a minefield of plot holes, arguably leaving more questions than it answered. Why exactly was Lex Luthor so hell-bent on destroying Superman? Luthor was portrayed as one who has a kind of fanatic devotion to the cause of destroying Superman, but his motivating factors are never made clear. Bruce Wayne at least had the excuse of revenge, but Luthor never seemed to have anything to worry about when it came Superman. Was Luthor always this fanatical, even before Superman appeared? Even in the first five minutes of his screen time, Lex Luthor gave off the impression that he belonged in a straight jacket, leaving one to wonder how exactly he got to where he was as the CEO of LexCorp. Granted, a Superman fanboy may try to refer me to the comics for answers and attempt to defend Dawn of Justice's portrayal of Lex Luthor with religious zeal, but this would be a poor cop-out. Chris Nolan's Dark Knight series was able to give an adequate backstory to Bruce Wayne/Batman without having to refer the audience to the comics for answers. Speaking of Batman, there also seemed to be a gross disconnect between this iteration of Batman, and the character archetype set for him in the previous films (and, if I may say so, this iteration of Batman is even at odds with the characterization of him in the Emmy Award-winning animated series from the 1990s). Specifically, there are several points in the film where Batman is portrayed with guns and actually using them to kill people, such as his vision of the future where he leads a resistance against Superman, as well as his big fight scene with Luthor's Russian henchmen while trying to save Superman's adoptive mother. This is starkly at odds with the identity of Batman established for him in previous film iterations; Batman famously doesn't kill people, let alone use guns to harm others, preferring usually to just beat them into submission. It's one thing to reboot a character, or take a character in a different direction (clearly, Chris Nolan's Dark Knight is radically different from the Tim Burton version of Batman from the late 80s/early 90s), but it's an entirely different thing to break away from one of the core traits that has come to define the character. This would be like having Captain America suddenly start fighting for Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union, something wholly incoherent with the character.
The introduction of Wonder Woman and the rest of the Justice League didn't help the film's odds either. In fact, their introduction felt a bit rushed; this is only the second installment of the DC Cinematic Universe and already we have the Justice League assembling on screen. I'm sure this is DC's and Warner Bros' attempt at catching up with Marvel's Avengers, but, as is typical with Warner Bros., they are just making things worse, and are always late to the party (see Mortal Kombat vs DC Universe). There were five installments in the Marvel Cinematic Universe before the release of the first Avengers film, allowing Marvel to really dig deep into the narratives of each of our primary protagonists, however silly those may (or may not) have been. With DC, however, it looks like they just want to skip to the part where a whole bunch of random superheroes appear on screen at the same time. This is a pity because it makes Wonder Woman's appearance feel very rushed and arbitrary; she is literally given no background at all, other than arguably a random photo from what looks to be World War II, and just shows up out of nowhere to help Batman and Superman fight the Krypton creature at the end. There is so much potential with Wonder Woman; this is her first really big live-action iteration, but the character's background wasn't established at all. And while there is a full-blown Wonder Woman movie in production for a slated 2017 release, it doesn't really help Dawn of Justice for it to be released after the fact. A similar criticism can be aimed at this version of Batman - there is a lot of untapped potential here as well. One of the defining characteristics of Chris Nolan's Dark Knight series is the fact that he tried to situate Batman in the realm of crime drama, using believable villains and mobsters as the scourge of Gotham that Batman is dealing with. This framework inevitably ruled out some of Batman's more "sci-fi" antagonists, such as Poison Ivy or Mr. Freeze. I think there is an opportunity here in the DC Cinematic Universe to really push Affleck's Batman, and perhaps revisit some of these more sci-fi villains that, while wholly inconsistent with the Nolan version of Batman, would seem plausible given what we have seen so far in Man of Steel and Dawn of Justice. Besides, it would take little effort to improve upon Poison Ivy and Mr. Freeze since their last silver screen appearance in 1997's Batman and Robin ("WHAT KILLED THE DINOSAURS?"). In fact, on that note, it might even be a good idea to revisit the Riddler as well (one of my personal favorite Batman villains, along with the Scarecrow).
Is there anything that Dawn of Justice does well? Well, yes and no. The area where I can give praise to Dawn of Justice is in its special effects, but, at the same time, I could also make the case that this works to its detriment. Make no mistake, Warner Bros. pumped a lot of money into making sure that Dawn of Justice was at the forefront of special effects, from Superman's eye lasers, to Bruce Wayne's apocalyptic dreamscape, to General Zod's crashed ship. This is in stark contrast to The 5th Wave, that alien invasion movie from earlier in the year that didn't look like an alien invasion at all, partially because of a lack of special effects. Dawn of Justice is at the complete opposite end of the spectrum. But that's also the thing that works against it. While The 5th Wave had no special effects at all, Dawn of Justice feels like it was directed by Michael Bay and seems to have gone completely overboard with its special effects. In many ways, I can't fault Dawn of Justice for this; this seems like the inevitable side effect of having Superman in your movies, and such an addiction to special effects, by this point, seems inherent to superhero films, as evidenced by the Avengers. But again, we can contrast Dawn of Justice and the Avengers with Nolan's Dark Knight series. Another thing that works in favor of Nolan's Batman films is the fact that they are not over-laced with special effects, making them more relatable, and facilitating the suspension of disbelief. It's difficult to maintain that when the primary protagonist just drops in to a terrorist stronghold and begins shooting lasers out of his eyes.
Overall, my dissatisfaction with Dawn of Justice can be summarized by two major points. First, DC has a tendency to show up late to the party, so to speak, and, as a result, everything seems so rushed and incomplete. Much in the same way the Mortal Kombat vs. DC Universe didn't offer anything above and beyond Marvel vs. Capcom, Dawn of Justice doesn't really offer anything that sets it apart from the Avengers. In fact, the Marvel Cinematic Universe at least developed its primary characters by giving them their own individual stories, something sorely lacking from the DC Cinematic Universe. Second, Dawn of Justice appears to have also jumped on the bandwagon of over-done and unnecessary special effects, using that as a mere distraction from an otherwise silly and underdeveloped plot. Like my feelings towards the Marvel Cinematic Universe, I would be much more interested in the characters' individual stories; there are a lot of unique character points that could be had with Batman and Wonder Woman, and I think developing those characters individually would greatly benefit the series before cramming them together into a hodge-podge of convoluted superhero action. On that note, though, this gives us something to look forward to in the Wonder Woman film due out next summer. And, speaking of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, now that Dawn of Justice is out of the way, this paves the way for Captain America: Civil War as the next big superhero film coming out in the next several weeks.
Lastly, I bring some good news for my (currently nonexistent) fans: I believe I have finally found an outlet for my writing in the form of LIKEYOUSAID Magazine. A punk/alternative music magazine based out of Boston, I have been in talks with one of the lead editors to contribute rock-related articles to their cause. As those get published, it is my intention to also post them to the blog. My first submission for the magazine, "Is 2016 the Most Punk Year in U.S. Politics?", should hopefully be making it to the "Features" column of LIKEYOUSAID soon!
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is the second installment of the DC Comics Cinematic Universe, after 2013's Man of Steel, and is meant to ultimately segue into a full-blown Justice League movie at some point in the future. And, in case you've lived under a rock for the better part of your life, the Justice League is DC's amalgam of their most famous superheroes, including Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman, who band together to fight evil, not unlike Marvel's Avengers, both of which appeared in the 1960s. The film stars Ben Affleck as Bruce Wayne/Batman and Henry Cavill as Clark Kent/Superman, with a supporting cast consisting of the likes of Laurence Fishburne, Diane Lane, Jeremy Irons, and Gal Gadot, and pits our two heroes against Superman's arch nemesis Lex Luthor, portrayed by Jesse Eisenburg. This also marks the first silver screen appearance of Batman since Chris Nolan's The Dark Knight Rises in 2012, and comes on the heels of Man of Steel, which, while not groundbreaking, is usually considered the most successful silver screen iteration of Superman to date (after a long list of failed attempts).
The film opens up with a re-enactment of the ending scene of Man of Steel, except told from the perspective of Bruce Wayne. Wayne finds himself running around frantically trying to save friends (and, interestingly, employees) from the chaos and destruction wrought by the final fight between Superman and General Zod. Faced with the sorrow and grief caused by all of the collateral damage, Wayne begins to harbor animosity towards Superman that festers as the film plays on. Fast forward to about two years after Man of Steel ends. Superman has become a kind of "on call" hero figure, appearing around the world to thwart evil wherever it may arise, while working as a journalist for the Metropolis newspaper The Daily Planet as his alter ego Clark Kent. Despite saving the world from General Zod and becoming a kind of celebrity figure, overall doing good throughout the world, Superman also has his share of detractors, including influential public officials in the U.S. Senate. These detractors see Superman as a kind of authoritarian figure, or a figure of unlimited power without any kind of checks or balances. Among them is the young, wealthy business and engineering tycoon Lex Luthor, who, through some shady business dealings around the world, comes across a large chunk of Kryptonite from Zod's failed attempt at terraforming Earth, found not far from a beach off the coast of the Indian Ocean.
Meanwhile, across the river from Metropolis in Gotham City, Batman continues to live up to his reputation as the mysterious vigilante, using his various gadgets and gizmos to bring evil-doers to justice, who, as far as this film is concerned, are usually petty street thugs. Of course, both heroes get their share of face time in the local media, Batman usually portrayed as a rogue vigilante, Superman as the paragon of righteousness, a messiah to some, a burgeoning dictator to others, including Wayne and Luthor. And it is through the media that Superman develops the perception that Batman is a kind of oppressor, skulking around the underbelly of Gotham to intimidate and threaten the destitute and dispossessed, many of whom have to resort to petty crime in order to survive. While this rivalry is developing, Luthor lobbies certain members of the U.S. Congress to help him weaponize the chunk of Kryptonite he managed to get his hands on as a kind of deterrent to Superman. After his proposal is ultimately rejected, he bombs the U.S. Capitol building, indirectly implicating Superman in the process. Wayne is then given reason to suspect Luthor of foul play, so, after researching recent projects that Luthor has been working on, Batman then manages to steal the chunk of Kryptonite from Luthor and uses it to create a spear designed to kill Superman. Eventually, with a little bit of coercion from Lex Luthor, our two heroes meet face to face and duke it out. That is, until the eventual interference of Lois Lane who manages to convince Batman to help Superman stop Luthor from using General Zod's ship to create an abominable Krypton creature. By the time our heroes put aside their differences, however, it is too late. The creature is released and the end of the film consists of our two heroes trying to find a way to stop it, eventually even getting help from Wonder Woman, who, quite literally, appears from nowhere.
As can be inferred from my opening evaluation of Batman v Superman at the outset, my overall impression of the film was pretty dismal. Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice more or less embodies everything that is wrong with superhero films, arguably even more so than the Avengers. It's difficult to even find a place to start critiquing it, there are so many to choose from. Perhaps the narrative and characters are a good place. Frankly, the story was mediocre and the character development is more or less what I would expect for a superhero movie, which is to say, virtually non-existent. I will admit that, while there are several comic series and superhero movies that I really enjoy (including Batman), Superman was never among them. The Superman series always struck me as boring and uninteresting. Superman is just too ridiculously overpowered - he flies, is faster than "a speeding bullet", near-impervious to damage (unless, of course, he is around Kryptonite), and shoots lasers out of his eyes, not to mention the fact he is jacked with an 8-pack and his pectorals always look like they are about to burst out of his shirt. He has virtually no flaws, and, for the flaws that he does have, they are not easy to exploit. Quite literally, the only creatures that stand a chance against Superman are otherwordly, much like the creature at the end of Dawn of Justice. But then, at this point, we have gone beyond the willful "suspension of disbelief" and completely detached the narrative from the viewers, instead focusing on an absolutely over-the-top fight between two ridiculously overpowered creatures. I continue to find myself perplexed by the fact that people are actually entertained by this - one thing that can make fiction really interesting is watching the characters grow and develop - watch their flaws be exploited, watch them learn from their mistakes, and watch them cope with everyday life, which makes them relatable to an audience. None of this applies to Superman (unless, of course, you're a shredded hunk with an 8-pack who can shoot lasers out of his eyes).
Of course, the film's problems go well beyond those of Superman. The overall narrative was a minefield of plot holes, arguably leaving more questions than it answered. Why exactly was Lex Luthor so hell-bent on destroying Superman? Luthor was portrayed as one who has a kind of fanatic devotion to the cause of destroying Superman, but his motivating factors are never made clear. Bruce Wayne at least had the excuse of revenge, but Luthor never seemed to have anything to worry about when it came Superman. Was Luthor always this fanatical, even before Superman appeared? Even in the first five minutes of his screen time, Lex Luthor gave off the impression that he belonged in a straight jacket, leaving one to wonder how exactly he got to where he was as the CEO of LexCorp. Granted, a Superman fanboy may try to refer me to the comics for answers and attempt to defend Dawn of Justice's portrayal of Lex Luthor with religious zeal, but this would be a poor cop-out. Chris Nolan's Dark Knight series was able to give an adequate backstory to Bruce Wayne/Batman without having to refer the audience to the comics for answers. Speaking of Batman, there also seemed to be a gross disconnect between this iteration of Batman, and the character archetype set for him in the previous films (and, if I may say so, this iteration of Batman is even at odds with the characterization of him in the Emmy Award-winning animated series from the 1990s). Specifically, there are several points in the film where Batman is portrayed with guns and actually using them to kill people, such as his vision of the future where he leads a resistance against Superman, as well as his big fight scene with Luthor's Russian henchmen while trying to save Superman's adoptive mother. This is starkly at odds with the identity of Batman established for him in previous film iterations; Batman famously doesn't kill people, let alone use guns to harm others, preferring usually to just beat them into submission. It's one thing to reboot a character, or take a character in a different direction (clearly, Chris Nolan's Dark Knight is radically different from the Tim Burton version of Batman from the late 80s/early 90s), but it's an entirely different thing to break away from one of the core traits that has come to define the character. This would be like having Captain America suddenly start fighting for Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union, something wholly incoherent with the character.
The introduction of Wonder Woman and the rest of the Justice League didn't help the film's odds either. In fact, their introduction felt a bit rushed; this is only the second installment of the DC Cinematic Universe and already we have the Justice League assembling on screen. I'm sure this is DC's and Warner Bros' attempt at catching up with Marvel's Avengers, but, as is typical with Warner Bros., they are just making things worse, and are always late to the party (see Mortal Kombat vs DC Universe). There were five installments in the Marvel Cinematic Universe before the release of the first Avengers film, allowing Marvel to really dig deep into the narratives of each of our primary protagonists, however silly those may (or may not) have been. With DC, however, it looks like they just want to skip to the part where a whole bunch of random superheroes appear on screen at the same time. This is a pity because it makes Wonder Woman's appearance feel very rushed and arbitrary; she is literally given no background at all, other than arguably a random photo from what looks to be World War II, and just shows up out of nowhere to help Batman and Superman fight the Krypton creature at the end. There is so much potential with Wonder Woman; this is her first really big live-action iteration, but the character's background wasn't established at all. And while there is a full-blown Wonder Woman movie in production for a slated 2017 release, it doesn't really help Dawn of Justice for it to be released after the fact. A similar criticism can be aimed at this version of Batman - there is a lot of untapped potential here as well. One of the defining characteristics of Chris Nolan's Dark Knight series is the fact that he tried to situate Batman in the realm of crime drama, using believable villains and mobsters as the scourge of Gotham that Batman is dealing with. This framework inevitably ruled out some of Batman's more "sci-fi" antagonists, such as Poison Ivy or Mr. Freeze. I think there is an opportunity here in the DC Cinematic Universe to really push Affleck's Batman, and perhaps revisit some of these more sci-fi villains that, while wholly inconsistent with the Nolan version of Batman, would seem plausible given what we have seen so far in Man of Steel and Dawn of Justice. Besides, it would take little effort to improve upon Poison Ivy and Mr. Freeze since their last silver screen appearance in 1997's Batman and Robin ("WHAT KILLED THE DINOSAURS?"). In fact, on that note, it might even be a good idea to revisit the Riddler as well (one of my personal favorite Batman villains, along with the Scarecrow).
Is there anything that Dawn of Justice does well? Well, yes and no. The area where I can give praise to Dawn of Justice is in its special effects, but, at the same time, I could also make the case that this works to its detriment. Make no mistake, Warner Bros. pumped a lot of money into making sure that Dawn of Justice was at the forefront of special effects, from Superman's eye lasers, to Bruce Wayne's apocalyptic dreamscape, to General Zod's crashed ship. This is in stark contrast to The 5th Wave, that alien invasion movie from earlier in the year that didn't look like an alien invasion at all, partially because of a lack of special effects. Dawn of Justice is at the complete opposite end of the spectrum. But that's also the thing that works against it. While The 5th Wave had no special effects at all, Dawn of Justice feels like it was directed by Michael Bay and seems to have gone completely overboard with its special effects. In many ways, I can't fault Dawn of Justice for this; this seems like the inevitable side effect of having Superman in your movies, and such an addiction to special effects, by this point, seems inherent to superhero films, as evidenced by the Avengers. But again, we can contrast Dawn of Justice and the Avengers with Nolan's Dark Knight series. Another thing that works in favor of Nolan's Batman films is the fact that they are not over-laced with special effects, making them more relatable, and facilitating the suspension of disbelief. It's difficult to maintain that when the primary protagonist just drops in to a terrorist stronghold and begins shooting lasers out of his eyes.
Overall, my dissatisfaction with Dawn of Justice can be summarized by two major points. First, DC has a tendency to show up late to the party, so to speak, and, as a result, everything seems so rushed and incomplete. Much in the same way the Mortal Kombat vs. DC Universe didn't offer anything above and beyond Marvel vs. Capcom, Dawn of Justice doesn't really offer anything that sets it apart from the Avengers. In fact, the Marvel Cinematic Universe at least developed its primary characters by giving them their own individual stories, something sorely lacking from the DC Cinematic Universe. Second, Dawn of Justice appears to have also jumped on the bandwagon of over-done and unnecessary special effects, using that as a mere distraction from an otherwise silly and underdeveloped plot. Like my feelings towards the Marvel Cinematic Universe, I would be much more interested in the characters' individual stories; there are a lot of unique character points that could be had with Batman and Wonder Woman, and I think developing those characters individually would greatly benefit the series before cramming them together into a hodge-podge of convoluted superhero action. On that note, though, this gives us something to look forward to in the Wonder Woman film due out next summer. And, speaking of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, now that Dawn of Justice is out of the way, this paves the way for Captain America: Civil War as the next big superhero film coming out in the next several weeks.
Lastly, I bring some good news for my (currently nonexistent) fans: I believe I have finally found an outlet for my writing in the form of LIKEYOUSAID Magazine. A punk/alternative music magazine based out of Boston, I have been in talks with one of the lead editors to contribute rock-related articles to their cause. As those get published, it is my intention to also post them to the blog. My first submission for the magazine, "Is 2016 the Most Punk Year in U.S. Politics?", should hopefully be making it to the "Features" column of LIKEYOUSAID soon!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)